brukb Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 So Freeclimb9, what's your point? I guess the term "most" is vague and debatable, but really, only the continents of North America, Antarctica, and Australia are relatively benign. Almost anywhere in Africa, Asia, South America, and parts of Europe one could be expected to run into "political unrest" of some kind. My point is that I don't think that most Americans, taking for granted our own stability, understand what political unrest is and how to deal with it. Just because you don't hear about unrest in these places on the nightly news does not mean it isn't there. Some places are obviously very dangerous to go to, but most have a level of risk that can be minimized. To say that "Americans just should not be there" is BS, for most places. Americans should go to these places, treat the locals with respect, and show the rest of the world that we are not what they see in their media; a country trying to take over the earth like an alien invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russki82 Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 alright gentlemen... first, I reiterate and stress that I am NOT making judgment on this specific story and these specific individuals. We simply don't have enough info to make any kind of conclusions about this particular story. I'm just taking the opportunity to make a general point. I don't think that these guys deserved to get shot at any more (or any less) than I think that I deserved to get bombarded with ice and nearly killed under the Kautz ice cliff this July. In both cases, we were taking a risk; exposing ourselves to OBJECTIVE DANGER - things outside of our control. All I'm saying is that some people seem to think that somehow, there is a difference between the objective risks of getting killed in the mountains by nature and getting into trouble due to someone shooting at you. Well, I don't see any huge difference. In either case, it's OUR responsibility to watch our ass when we're out there. Excuse me for being blunt, but the idea of saying that "these Chinese soldiers weren't supposed to be there, this is not their territory" is not much different from saying, "that chunk of ice wasn't SUPPOSED to fall at that particular moment...in other words, a bit naive. Does it mean that you can't climb in Nepal, in the Caucasus, in Central Asia? Well, no, it doesn't...but it DOES mean that you're responsible for whatever happens to you...whether it be natural, or "not natural". I hope i've made myself clear enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr._Chips Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Could be other climber in the past giving the area a bad name. i know of, from personal experience, of some european climbers cutting border around nepal and tibet, totally illegal. i am not saying that is what these guys were doing, but try telling the chinese soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.