PDA

View Full Version : Alan Johnston released



Angela
04-Jul-07, 09:09
I was so pleased to see on this morning's news that BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has been released.
One small piece of good news. :)

stratman
04-Jul-07, 09:25
Great news. That must have been so scary, as a journalist he would be well aware of things that could have happened to him.

orkneylass
04-Jul-07, 09:49
Hooray - really uplifting - his elderly parents had really suffered along with him

golach
04-Jul-07, 09:55
Good to hear some positive news at last

floyed
04-Jul-07, 09:57
that is brilliant news:D

seren
04-Jul-07, 10:57
absolutely fantastic news :cool::cool:

corgiman
04-Jul-07, 12:06
brilliant news for him and his family :D

Maegwynn
04-Jul-07, 12:10
That is good news! For a while it didnt look like he would be released. It takes a brave person to do his job in hostile places. It must of been terrifying.

Dusty
04-Jul-07, 12:45
I was slightly taken aback at how relaxed and objective about it all he was during the interviews, given the immense release from stress that he must have been feeling.
Methinks the gentleman is made of sterner stuff than most and when you see the way his family have conducted themselves during the ordeal, you can see where he gets it from.
Great news for him and his familiy.

Jeemag_USA
04-Jul-07, 13:34
Fantastic news, was the first thing I saw when I woke up this morning, great way to start the day, off to play golf now!! :Razz

Happy 4th July ;)

Liz
04-Jul-07, 13:44
That is great!
So good to get good news for a change!:D

Lavenderblue2
04-Jul-07, 14:06
The best news we've heard in a long time - poor soul looks thin and pale. Thank God he's safe now.

I felt so sorry for his dear Mum this morning - she couldn't get a word in edgeways his Dad was speaking over the top of her all the time. Journalists were trying to speak to her but he wasn't having any of it.

LB

fred
04-Jul-07, 15:56
Yes, I would like to say a big thank you to the leaders of Hamas who worked so hard to secure his release and say how sorry I am that we in the west refuse to recognise you as the legitimate government of Palestine even though you were democratically elected fair and square.

I don't suppose anyone is interested in Sami al-Hajj the Al-Jazeera cameraman who has been held without trial by the Americans since December 2001?

Angela
04-Jul-07, 17:10
I don't suppose anyone is interested in Sami al-Hajj the Al-Jazeera cameraman who has been held without trial by the Americans since December 2001?

I don't think you can necessarily draw that conclusion, fred.

I would agree that I can probably identify more with Alan Johnston and his family because they're Scottish, and because he works for the BBC. That's because of who I am and where I live, and doesn't mean I feel he's more important than anybody else in a similar position.

Just for a change, it was nice to get up to some good news in the morning!

Rheghead
04-Jul-07, 21:32
Yes, I would like to say a big thank you to the leaders of Hamas

Is that the same Hamas that has been responsible to countless murders, kidnappings and assaults?:confused

Oh, but were they done in self defence?....:confused


I am that we in the west refuse to recognise you as the legitimate government of Palestine even though you were democratically elected fair and square.


Like the Government of Iraq who is allowing the presence of coallition forces in Iraq.

ashaw1
04-Jul-07, 22:07
About time too! I know he is a news reporter but couldn't he have been left alone for a while before being put through constant interviews.

horseman
05-Jul-07, 22:16
Yes, I would like to say a big thank you to the leaders of Hamas who worked so hard to secure his release and say how sorry I am that we in the west refuse to recognise you as the legitimate government of Palestine even though you were democratically elected fair and square.

I don't suppose anyone is interested in Sami al-Hajj the Al-Jazeera cameraman who has been held without trial by the Americans since December 2001?

Nice one fred, an that is not a put down.

j4bberw0ck
05-Jul-07, 22:27
Yes, I would like to say a big thank you to the leaders of Hamas who worked so hard to secure his release and say how sorry I am that we in the west refuse to recognise you as the legitimate government of Palestine even though you were democratically elected fair and square

Ah hey....the Palestinians have a democratic right to elect a party acknowledged as terrorists by the UN, we have the democratic right to say we won't deal with them.

No big deal.

They just want the Israeli and UN money back. Amazing what happens after a bit of face-saving combined with a bit of political wrangling. Especially when they've got no sheckels.

I'll be more impressed when they get the poor long suffering souls who've lived in refugee camps for 60 years integrated into the community, instead of using them as political pawn. Can you imagine this country keeping those bombed in the East End of London in WW2 in refugee camps until Germany is no more? That's the game the Arabs are playing; they won't integrate their own people because it would look as though they have accepted Israel.

Even hidden behind a burq'aa that's as two faced as you could possibly get and marks a level the US / UK haven't even begun to plumb.

fred
05-Jul-07, 23:50
Ah hey....the Palestinians have a democratic right to elect a party acknowledged as terrorists by the UN, we have the democratic right to say we won't deal with them.


Let's have a look at Israel's record at the United Nations shall we.


July 1973 Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

January 1976 Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

March 1976 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

June 1976 Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

April 1980 Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

April 1982 Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

April 1982 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.

June 1982 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

June 1982 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

August 1982 Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.

The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

August 1983 Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance

September 1985 Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

January 1986 Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

January 1988 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

April 1988 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

February 1989 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

June 1989 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

November 1989 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

May 1990 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

May 1995 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

March 1997 Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

March 1997 Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

March 2001 Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

December 2001 Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.

In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.

JAWS
06-Jul-07, 01:28
Yes, I would like to say a big thank you to the leaders of Hamas who worked so hard to secure his release and say how sorry I am that we in the west refuse to recognise you as the legitimate government of Palestine even though you were democratically elected fair and square.

You mean they didn't know where he was in the first place? I wonder what they will be calling themselves next month, Black August?
Perhaps The Popular Front for the Liberation of Gaza sounds more impressive.

At least they got bored with hi-jacking planes to Dawson's Field. How is Leila Khaled these days, fred?

j4bberw0ck
06-Jul-07, 07:31
Let's have a look at Israel's record at the United Nations shall we.

Gee whiz, how stupid of me. I thought it was spelt "HAMAS" not "ISRAEL".

fred
06-Jul-07, 09:12
Gee whiz, how stupid of me. I thought it was spelt "HAMAS" not "ISRAEL".

I wouldn't call the things you said about the Palestinian people stupid.

If you didn't know about the way they have been oppressed by Israel and America then they were merely ignorant, if you did they were downright racist.

Twenty four times the Palestinians looked to us for justice and twenty four times America abused their power of veto to deny it. Then they looked to us for democracy and we denied them that too.

What was it our troops were supposed to be fighting for in the Middle East again?

Angela
06-Jul-07, 09:14
Silly, silly me.

I started this thread to post some good news about one person - I know quite a few folk had been thinking about him over the past months.

Of course I know there's a much bigger - and very complex -picture.

However, some of us now hesitate to post anything that is at all political in nature because we know only too well that we will be steamrollered and/or patronised. :(

Political discussions -where people actually considered each other's points of view and reviewed their own thinking - now, that would be interesting!

Is it just a coincidence that very few female Orgers ever post on political subjects? :confused

Lolabelle
06-Jul-07, 11:02
Silly, silly me.

I started this thread to post some good news about one person - I know quite a few folk had been thinking about him over the past months.

Of course I know there's a much bigger - and very complex -picture.

However, some of us now hesitate to post anything that is at all political in nature because we know only too well that we will be steamrollered and/or patronised. :(

Political discussions -where people actually considered each other's points of view and reviewed their own thinking - now, that would be interesting!

Is it just a coincidence that very few female Orgers ever post on political subjects? :confused

I agree with you Angela, but I refuse to be cowed. If I have an opinion I am going to have a say. I don't care whether others are patronising toward me, to me this just shows what kind of manners they have. Because all of us are entitled to an opinion but all of us are also entitled to be treated politely. It is possible to voice your opinion on a subject with out being berated for it being different to others.
That's what I think, anyway.

MadPict
06-Jul-07, 12:34
I am disgusted by the way, what starts off as a good thread, reasonabley quickly disintegrates into a slinging match. I wonder if we need a 3 page cut off point, cause it often seems to go down hill after that.

3 page cut-off point? Bang goes that limit....... ;)
It went downhill after post 12...


If I have an opinion I am going to have a say.

So it is OK for you to state your opinion but if someone else wishes to it becomes a "slanging match"? :)

If members read a post which they strongly disagree with (for whatever reasons) they should be allowed to reply to that post.

sorghaghtanibeki
06-Jul-07, 13:41
Fred
This thread was basic a good news mention that bbc reporter had been released - it took only 13 posts before you highjacked with a personel message to Hamas - when are you going to travel to Gaza to help these poor peoples, or am i right in thinking your never going to get off your backside? or is it a naive Mr kimber we have amongs us?

fred
06-Jul-07, 14:24
Fred
This thread was basic a good news mention that bbc reporter had been released -

Yes we are all delighted that Alan Johnston has been able to go home after nearly four months, some of us delighted enough to thank those who went out of their way to make it happen.

Now about the four million Palestinians who also want to go home, they've been waiting 60 years.

Angela
06-Jul-07, 14:29
Yes we are all delighted that Alan Johnston has been able to go home after nearly four months, some of us delighted enough to thank those who went out of their way to make it happen.

Now about the four million Palestinians who also want to go home, they've been waiting 60 years.

Fred, this may come as a surprise, but I don't disagree with you about the Palestinians.

golach
06-Jul-07, 15:28
Yes we are all delighted that Alan Johnston has been able to go home after nearly four months, some of us delighted enough to thank those who went out of their way to make it happen.
Now about the four million Palestinians who also want to go home, they've been waiting 60 years.
What about the 6.5 million Israeli's who have been trying to live a life without constant attack by their Arab neighbours, they are entitled to a bit of peace are they not?

Skerries
06-Jul-07, 16:15
Silly, silly me.

I started this thread to post some good news about one person - I know quite a few folk had been thinking about him over the past months.

Of course I know there's a much bigger - and very complex -picture.

However, some of us now hesitate to post anything that is at all political in nature because we know only too well that we will be steamrollered and/or patronised. :(

Political discussions -where people actually considered each other's points of view and reviewed their own thinking - now, that would be interesting!

Is it just a coincidence that very few female Orgers ever post on political subjects?

Thanks for posting the good news about Alan.

It's not that long ago that Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered. Although it was different circumstances, we can still be glad that someone else hasn't been murdered while reporting objectively on and therefore highlighting very difficult and emotive situations.

Tristan
06-Jul-07, 21:10
If members read a post which they strongly disagree with (for whatever reasons) they should be allowed to reply to that post.


I couldn't agree more!


Good news about Alan, hopefully more people helped without cause will be freed as well.

fred
06-Jul-07, 23:17
What about the 6.5 million Israeli's who have been trying to live a life without constant attack by their Arab neighbours, they are entitled to a bit of peace are they not?

In a survey conducted by NIF Grantee Center Against Racism and Defamation in May last year 68% of Israeli Jews said that they would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Arab.

I make that 4,420,000 of them who are not.

golach
07-Jul-07, 00:14
In a survey conducted by NIF Grantee Center Against Racism and Defamation in May last year 68% of Israeli Jews said that they would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Arab.

I make that 4,420,000 of them who are not.
Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?

fred
07-Jul-07, 00:41
Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?

That remark is racist.

golach
07-Jul-07, 00:51
That remark is racist.
Please explain why Fred?

Tristan
07-Jul-07, 03:45
Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?

Do you honestly believe that is how all Arabs feel?:eek:

golach
07-Jul-07, 10:02
I said


What about the 6.5 million Israeli's who have been trying to live a life without constant attack by their Arab neighbours, they are entitled to a bit of peace are they not?

Fred replied

In a survey conducted by NIF Grantee Center Against Racism and Defamation in May last year 68% of Israeli Jews said that they would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Arab.
I make that 4,420,000 of them who are not.

I replied

Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?


Do you honestly believe that is how all Arabs feel?:eek:
I rest my case Tristian

fred
07-Jul-07, 10:29
Please explain why Fred?

Well now if I had said that 68% of people in Britain would refuse to live in the same apartment as a Pakistani and you had replied "why would anyone want to live in the same apartment building as someone who blows up tube trains" then that would be classed as racist wouldn't it?

Tristan
07-Jul-07, 11:50
I rest my case Tristian


I understand the situation with the Arab states and their view towards Israel but I don't think it fair to say that all Arabs want to "destroy you [Jewish person] and your nation?"

golach
07-Jul-07, 14:25
Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?


Well now if I had said that 68% of people in Britain would refuse to live in the same apartment as a Pakistani and you had replied "why would anyone want to live in the same apartment building as someone who blows up tube trains" then that would be classed as racist wouldn't it?

Show me where I have mentioned or singled out any nation or peoples Fred? You on the other hand have vilified the USA, the UK the Jews / Israeli's at every opportunity. I have only condemmed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the followers for the afore mentioned, I have yet to see you do similar.

golach
07-Jul-07, 14:31
What about the 6.5 million Israeli's who have been trying to live a life without constant attack by their Arab neighbours, they are entitled to a bit of peace are they not?


I understand the situation with the Arab states and their view towards Israel but I don't think it fair to say that all Arabs want to "destroy you [Jewish person] and your nation?"

Where does the word "all Arabs" appear in my statement Tristan? Apart from Jordan and possibly Egypt lately, every other Arab nation has attacked Israel on a regular basis

fred
07-Jul-07, 15:30
Show me where I have mentioned or singled out any nation or peoples Fred?

Post #33 above.

golach
07-Jul-07, 15:54
Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?


Post #33 above.

Fred that is my answer to your statement, what peoples have I mentioned?
Unless you know of a nation called "Anyone" or "Someone"

fred
07-Jul-07, 16:46
Fred that is my answer to your statement, what peoples have I mentioned?
Unless you know of a nation called "Anyone" or "Someone"

You didn't include the quoted part of the message which made it quite clear that the "someone" you were referring to was anyone of the Arab race.

golach
07-Jul-07, 19:57
You didn't include the quoted part of the message which made it quite clear that the "someone" you were referring to was anyone of the Arab race.
Thats your assumption fred, not mine

Ricco
07-Jul-07, 20:06
Post #33 above.

I must confess that I agree with Golach here. Post #33 does not reference 'all arabs'. However, post #39 by Tristan does. Looks like Golach is innocent of that sweeping statement, Fred. ;)

Tristan
07-Jul-07, 21:22
In a survey conducted by NIF Grantee Center Against Racism and Defamation in May last year 68% of Israeli Jews said that they would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Arab.


They would refuse to live in an apartment with an Arab, not an enemy or someone trying to "destroy you and your nation" but with any Arab.


Why would anyone live in the same apartment building as someone who want to destroy you and your nation?

Where does it say that the Arab they refused to live with was trying to "destroy you and your nation"? The origional poll and hence your post justifies not living with any Arabs in the apartment whether they are friendly or not.


Where does the word "all Arabs" appear in my statement Tristan? Apart from Jordan and possibly Egypt lately, every other Arab nation has attacked Israel on a regular basis

Perhaps you meant certain Arabs, but your post implies all Arabs. Your post justfies not living in the same apartment as an Arab because they are trying to "destroy you and your nation" but as you have just said above not all are anymore.