Remarks about Suicide Bombers

Originally Posted by Graham

"I understand it's a matter of free speech, but I expect her to express some sympathy for the victims of suicide bombers and not confining herself to confessing understanding for suicide bombers," he said.

Given that attitude of the Israeli ambassador who attacked that art installation a few days ago I do not get the impression that they have much respect for free speech unless it unequivocally supports the Israeli perspective.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip>Whatever else you may say, Israel does *not* hold the moral high ground.

I never said that it did

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

I might just consider punching you in the nose for saying that, but it doesn't mean that I actually *would*.

Oh come off it, thats in a different context to how she said it. The way she said it, she appeared to be giving weight to their actions. Wheather she actually would do it is immaterial.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The way she said it, she appeared to be giving weight to their actions. Wheather she actually would do it is immaterial.

No, that's the interpretation that people have put onto her words for their own political ends.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, that's the interpretation that people have put onto her words for their own political ends.

Exactly, the sound bite I heard, she was trying very hard to make it clear that she condemned suicide bombers, but felt that if she was in the palestinian position, she might become one herself, and said how awful it is to think like that.

No way did she try and justify suicide bombers.

"If I had to live in that situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one myself. Which is an awful thing to think"

[xaq141175]

i agree xaccers ... in fact, tonge has even specifically stated that she did not condone suicide bombers.

my interpretation is that tonge has expressed empathy for the palastinians situation and that desparation can and often does lead to violence. morality looks very different when you live in abject poverty with no way out and no hope for improvment.

she was making a statement under a personal context too, not a partisan one. she isn't in the government either. kennedy should have siad he disagreed with her and then let the people of her constituency decide at the next election whether she is acceptable or not.

political correctness carves another notch in it's bedpost !

[Xaccers]

She was planning on retiring at the next election anyway.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

She was planning on retiring at the next election anyway.

Which is probably why she feels she can finally speak her mind...!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, that's the interpretation that people have put onto her words for their own political ends.

Apparently (according to 'any questions' on radio4 a few hours ago) she had plenty of opportunity to retract/amend/qualify her statement at the time of the original interview and she declined to do so. By saying that she would consider it, she is condoning it. No ifs or buts. This is black and white. She could have said something like: 'if I was in that situation and was brainwashed by evil people' then it would have been ok. But she didn't.
However, I still don't think she should have lost her job, politicians should be able to make gaffs, they aren't infallible robots.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Apparently (according to 'any questions' on radio4 a few hours ago) she had plenty of opportunity to retract/amend/qualify her statement at the time of the original interview and she declined to do so. By saying that she would consider it, she is condoning it. No ifs or buts.

Pardon me but that's rubbish.

What she said was clear enough at the start and, frankly, any "retraction, amendment, qualification" would just have been jumped on by the political opportunists as trying to weasel out, when IMO it's clear that she meant exactly what she said.

[Xaccers]

I couldn't believe (ok I could) how badly the sun had misquoted her.
Changing her statement from one fo condemning suicide bombers but understanding what drives them to it, to being pro-suicide bombers.

Here's something like what she said, but a different context.

"I condemn burglaries by heroine users. I think though, that if I was a heroine user, and I say this advisedly, that I too would break into someone's house to steal their TV, just to pay for my next fix."

Don't anyone dare say I can't compare the two, because I'm not comparing the two, it is the message that is important, not the context.


Most of us can understand the above, we know that drug users break into houses/mug people just to be able to afford their next fix. We understand why they are stealing, but in saying we understand, we are in no way what so ever saying we are pro-stealing, or justifyting drug users stealing for their habbits.

That message is no different to what Tonge was saying. She could understand why suicide bombers do what they do, and that if she was in the same horrible situation as the palestinians, she might even do it as well (because she understood what drove them to it), but that is in no way what so ever saying that the suicide bombers are right, or just, or that she is pro-terrorists.

Now do you understand?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Pardon me but that's rubbish.

Thanks Graham, which bit exactly?

[Ramrod]

[QUOTE=Xaccers] we know that drug users break into houses/mug people just to be able to afford their next fix. We understand why they are stealing, but in saying we understand, we are in no way what so ever saying we are pro-stealing, or justifyting drug users stealing for their habbits.

That message is no different to what Tonge was saying. She could understand why suicide bombers do what they do, and that if she was in the same horrible situation as the palestinians, she might even do it as well (because she understood what drove them to it), but that is in no way what so ever saying that the suicide bombers are right, or just, or that she is pro-terrorists.
QUOTE]
Different situations. Drug users have no choice, their addiction drives them (and we can understand that without condoning their actions). Palestinians have a choice.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Different situations. Drug users have no choice, their addiction drives them (and we can understand that without condoning their actions). Palestinians have a choice.

Not really, their intense hate drives them - and relgious believes that they are guaranteed paradise if they do.
The IRA has blown up people for less than this but we haven't caused so much fuss over Jerry Adams.

[Xaccers]

for crying out loud!!!!

What part of "Don't anyone dare say I can't compare the two, because I'm not comparing the two, it is the message that is important, not the context." don't you get?

The message is that it is possible to understand why someone does something whilst still condemning it, whether it be stealing for drugs, suicide bombing, cheating on your partner etc