Not back 24 hours, and causing trouble already
11 March 2004, 11:15 PM
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again I say it is a good thing that Asif is here and able to eloquently and intelligently express opposing and balanced views to mine and many others’. What a breath of fresh air, and damn you for serving your cause so well 
Why educated people her like UB and 70% of the rest who have the gift of intelligent expression continue to bother with certain insult throwing individuals with anger management problems here is beyond me.
Long live those that talk like grown ups – whatever their view!
Why educated people her like UB and 70% of the rest who have the gift of intelligent expression continue to bother with certain insult throwing individuals with anger management problems here is beyond me.
Long live those that talk like grown ups – whatever their view!
11 March 2004, 11:43 PM
#122
It's about our freedom
Originally Posted by unclebuck
As a footnote to the *original subject* of this thread, Jack Straw stated in an interview on Channel 4 News that the reason these people have been released is *not* necessarily because they are innocent (he refused to be drawn one way or the other on that point), but because under British law there is not sufficient evidence to bring about a successful conviction.
You can reach your own conclusions about what he was saying in between the lines.
UB
You can reach your own conclusions about what he was saying in between the lines.
UB
Finally we will have to relinquish some of our freedom if we want the terrorists in our midst to be stopped or at least hindered. I guess Straw is saying that sometimes guilt by association rather than proof is right if it protects the majority from the [insane] minority.
As you might guess, I have darker than caucasian skin and these days always get stopped when crossing borders. I guess I just fit the common profile of a possible [Islamic] terrorist in this sense, ironic though that is
. To be honest though, provided the border guards are polite about it, I just accept it as a fact of the world, post 9/11. So some freedom has already gone, for some of us......Suresh
12 March 2004, 12:00 AM
#124
King RA
But what if they are entirely innocent? Do you still feel the same way?
1 thing I don't understand is why the media and Mr. Blair were really pushing to get these people home. It gives the impression to the rest of the world that we care about them and want them back. I for one, and practically everyone I know (and no I'm not part of a racist group) would rather they never came back.
12 March 2004, 12:27 AM
#125
I've been listening to a number of Radio 4 Today articles on these Paedeatrician Professors that have been getting it completely fecking wrong over the last number of years - Munchausen's Sympton By Proxy being the diagnosis.
This is when a parent, in order to draw attention to themselves, wounds/kills their own child or children.
Based on the "expert" evidence of one man, several people have gone to prison for crimes that they did not commit. The case this morning was the one of the woman, recently released, who "alledgedly" killed her two children. This chap had nothing to do with it, but WATCHING CH4 Despatches (which cast so much doubt on the conviction it was immediately reviewed) heard the father talk about a nosebleed one of the children had had. Based entirely on that, he called the police, had the man arrested on suspicion of murder. Fortunately at the end of the day, but not after a lot of angst, sense prevailed & the father released.
This has been cutting me up listening to these stories how one man can so comprehensively wreck the lives of 100s of parents and children who are entirely innocent, but this happens because "he believes it to be true".
I can't but help drawing a parallel here with the Guatanamo detainees.
People who'se lives are wrecked due to the actions of another/others, when they are entirely innocent, just because that someone says so.
I would ask those people that are entirely convinced that these 5 guys are guilty (as charged?) to really think about whether they are or not. Based on the evidence submitted (and it is the same rule of evidence level that YOU yourself would be required to convince a court of law in this country) there is nothing to charge them with, yet you're quite happy to assume that they are guilty and desire that they be punished. In this respect, you are acting in the same manner as the Professor in these so-called child abuse cases.
TBH, I think that a lot of this lynch mob mentality is based on the fact that they are muslim. Sad to say, but there you go.
Not a situation that I am proud of, as an Englishman and a member of "Western Civilisation"
This is when a parent, in order to draw attention to themselves, wounds/kills their own child or children.
Based on the "expert" evidence of one man, several people have gone to prison for crimes that they did not commit. The case this morning was the one of the woman, recently released, who "alledgedly" killed her two children. This chap had nothing to do with it, but WATCHING CH4 Despatches (which cast so much doubt on the conviction it was immediately reviewed) heard the father talk about a nosebleed one of the children had had. Based entirely on that, he called the police, had the man arrested on suspicion of murder. Fortunately at the end of the day, but not after a lot of angst, sense prevailed & the father released.
This has been cutting me up listening to these stories how one man can so comprehensively wreck the lives of 100s of parents and children who are entirely innocent, but this happens because "he believes it to be true".
I can't but help drawing a parallel here with the Guatanamo detainees.
People who'se lives are wrecked due to the actions of another/others, when they are entirely innocent, just because that someone says so.
I would ask those people that are entirely convinced that these 5 guys are guilty (as charged?) to really think about whether they are or not. Based on the evidence submitted (and it is the same rule of evidence level that YOU yourself would be required to convince a court of law in this country) there is nothing to charge them with, yet you're quite happy to assume that they are guilty and desire that they be punished. In this respect, you are acting in the same manner as the Professor in these so-called child abuse cases.
TBH, I think that a lot of this lynch mob mentality is based on the fact that they are muslim. Sad to say, but there you go.
Not a situation that I am proud of, as an Englishman and a member of "Western Civilisation"
12 March 2004, 01:08 AM
#126
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Yanks didn't just select a random group of people in Afghanistan and deport them to their new holiday homes. They were all taken for a reason.
Given the fact that they've been held (and interrogated by both British and American operatives) for over two years, don't you think that if there was any evidence to charge them with something, either the US Government or ours would have stuck something on them, if only to save the embarrassment that has resulted from their release?
If they were found in that general neck of the woods, it's certainly possible that they might not have had the most positive reasons for being there. However, one of the tenets of our justice system is that people are innocent until proven guilty, and, unless something pretty radical has changed, I don't think that geography alone is damning evidence of terrorist activity. If it was, there'd be a lot of Red Cross (and other humanitarian organisations)' people clogging up jails in all the worlds dodgiest areas.
One of these guys was found in a Taliban jail, so was he on their side or not?
Our justice system may be a little old fashioned, maybe even arcane, but it's developed over a couple of thousand years and it does a pretty good job. I don't particularly care for the fact that both our Government and the one in the USA are using the "War on Terror" as an excuse to circumvent good legal process. Just arresting and holding these men does not in itself mean they're guilty of anything. If they were, then, by letting them loose, the Police, Security Services and CPS are guilty of dropping the ball and letting five dangerous individuals back into circulation.
12 March 2004, 11:10 AM
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say that I find it very regrettable that people on this thread are prepared to accept circumstantial evidence as proof of guilt. It is a basic precept of British justice that you have to be proved guilty with positive evidence before you can be said to be a criminal or whatever. After all this time and the heavy and unpleasant interrogation these guys have now been released. They may of course be arrested again if some evidence comes to light, but I don't believe they would have been released if there was any doubt about safety with their release. All the investigative services and "spooks" have been studying them for long enough!
It is by no means "PC" to expect prisoners to be treated correctly as our laws of justice state they should be. You have to be proved of having committed a crime before you can be treated as being guilty. I repeat that necessity deliberately. Our rights under the law have been hard fought for over many many years and to start taking short cuts in that respect is a very dangerous occupation. There is no way any suspected terrorist should be tried by a secret court with a reduced requirement as far as the burden of proof is concerned. Just imagine if you were caught in the wrong place even though you were innocent and you were found guilty in such a court with no recourse to justice. That is what used to happen in the Dark Ages!
Those of you who assume their guilt would do better to at least keep it to yourselves
until some positive evidence appears to prove it one way or another.
Don't think for a moment that I have any truck with terrorists, if found guilty I think they should be strung up for murderous behaviour.
Les
It is by no means "PC" to expect prisoners to be treated correctly as our laws of justice state they should be. You have to be proved of having committed a crime before you can be treated as being guilty. I repeat that necessity deliberately. Our rights under the law have been hard fought for over many many years and to start taking short cuts in that respect is a very dangerous occupation. There is no way any suspected terrorist should be tried by a secret court with a reduced requirement as far as the burden of proof is concerned. Just imagine if you were caught in the wrong place even though you were innocent and you were found guilty in such a court with no recourse to justice. That is what used to happen in the Dark Ages!
Those of you who assume their guilt would do better to at least keep it to yourselves
until some positive evidence appears to prove it one way or another.
Don't think for a moment that I have any truck with terrorists, if found guilty I think they should be strung up for murderous behaviour.
Les
12 March 2004, 11:38 AM
#129
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Is it not fair to say that by their behaviour and beliefs alone they are taking an anti UK stance? Is it not fair, therefore, to assume that they don't want to be British and for us to not want them to be British?
2) By virtue of the fact that they are anti British, share Anti British ideas and beliefs with KNOWN and PROVEN terrorist organisations and go out of their way to travel to known terrorist hotspots in the middle of a conflict is it not fair to say that they are a security RISK to Britain?
Whether they have been proven to have comitted a criminal offence or not, they should still be treated as a potential threat. Like it or not, these men are a hundred times more likely to blow themselves up than anyone else. Who's fault will it be if the signs are ignored and that happens?
Most people wouldn be loath to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's "beliefs" cause them to hang around childrens playgrounds or to be repeatedly accused of molestation. The signs were there with Ian Huntley but he had only been accused, not convicted yet now a witch hunt is in progress because those signs were not acted upon.
2) By virtue of the fact that they are anti British, share Anti British ideas and beliefs with KNOWN and PROVEN terrorist organisations and go out of their way to travel to known terrorist hotspots in the middle of a conflict is it not fair to say that they are a security RISK to Britain?
Whether they have been proven to have comitted a criminal offence or not, they should still be treated as a potential threat. Like it or not, these men are a hundred times more likely to blow themselves up than anyone else. Who's fault will it be if the signs are ignored and that happens?
Most people wouldn be loath to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's "beliefs" cause them to hang around childrens playgrounds or to be repeatedly accused of molestation. The signs were there with Ian Huntley but he had only been accused, not convicted yet now a witch hunt is in progress because those signs were not acted upon.
Last edited by ajm; 12 March 2004 at 11:40 AM.
12 March 2004, 12:08 PM
#130
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insufficient evidence for the CPS is not the same as being innocent.
The strength of the British justice system is also unfortunately the thing that lets guilty people off.
I don't think these people should be allowed to sue either the American or the British governments.
They were handed over to the US forces in a war zone under very suspicous circumstances. Combatants not in uniform are treated differently under the Geneva Convention, so they were not necessarily being held illegally anyway.
The UK govt. neither imprisoned them ro charged them, so what recourse do they have?
If they are truly innocent, then they have been foolish in the extreme to go to a war zone, and should be thankful they got away with their lives.
If they were there to fight for the Taliban, they should consider themsleves very fortunate to have got way with it and now shut up and slink back into obscurity.
Geezer
The strength of the British justice system is also unfortunately the thing that lets guilty people off.
I don't think these people should be allowed to sue either the American or the British governments.
They were handed over to the US forces in a war zone under very suspicous circumstances. Combatants not in uniform are treated differently under the Geneva Convention, so they were not necessarily being held illegally anyway.
The UK govt. neither imprisoned them ro charged them, so what recourse do they have?
If they are truly innocent, then they have been foolish in the extreme to go to a war zone, and should be thankful they got away with their lives.
If they were there to fight for the Taliban, they should consider themsleves very fortunate to have got way with it and now shut up and slink back into obscurity.
Geezer
12 March 2004, 12:32 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again Diesel,
Most gracious in your praise! Although you must be careful, otherwise you and I will be accused of being one and the same person! LOL!
AJM, I take your point and if it transpires that these guys are as you say, then I agree with you, but I do think that if these guys were fully paid up members of the Taliban/Al Q that the US would not have let them go. Even if that was their 'only' crime.
I take your point about Huntley etc, and who wouldn't want to put away every person who was a threat to kids? But as in the case of the these guys from Guantanamo woud you really want to put an innocent man away? I cant think what would make me feel worse right now - to be wrongly convicted of being a terrorist or be wrongly convicted of being a paedophile!
Suresh, interesting point you make and I digress from the thread. You know, I have flown abroad about 6 times since September 11th, 3 times to Europe and 3 times to the US. The first time was literally a week after the event, when my friends and I went on a (long planned) holiday to Portugal.
Situation was crazy, huge queues at Gatwick, just to get into the departure lounge, we couldn't even get into the airport at Faro on the way back, as armed police demanded you show your documents before you could get into the building etc.
Visits to the States were even worse, people being searched umpteen times before they got onto the plane, at both ends (of the flight that is!) On one trip I was flying by myself and I was convinced that I was going to be strip searched, probed, the lot, especially when a white family in front of me were stopped and the kids (about 8 years old) had their belongings searched thoroughly.
You know what happened to me - nothing. Not on a single trip, at ANY point was I singled out, or felt singled out. I had the same security checks as anyone else, but at no point did I get anything 'extra'. And I am Muslim, by birth anyway and Pakistani by parental origin.
So there you go, just an interesting aside.
Asif
Most gracious in your praise! Although you must be careful, otherwise you and I will be accused of being one and the same person! LOL!
AJM, I take your point and if it transpires that these guys are as you say, then I agree with you, but I do think that if these guys were fully paid up members of the Taliban/Al Q that the US would not have let them go. Even if that was their 'only' crime.
I take your point about Huntley etc, and who wouldn't want to put away every person who was a threat to kids? But as in the case of the these guys from Guantanamo woud you really want to put an innocent man away? I cant think what would make me feel worse right now - to be wrongly convicted of being a terrorist or be wrongly convicted of being a paedophile!
Suresh, interesting point you make and I digress from the thread. You know, I have flown abroad about 6 times since September 11th, 3 times to Europe and 3 times to the US. The first time was literally a week after the event, when my friends and I went on a (long planned) holiday to Portugal.
Situation was crazy, huge queues at Gatwick, just to get into the departure lounge, we couldn't even get into the airport at Faro on the way back, as armed police demanded you show your documents before you could get into the building etc.
Visits to the States were even worse, people being searched umpteen times before they got onto the plane, at both ends (of the flight that is!) On one trip I was flying by myself and I was convinced that I was going to be strip searched, probed, the lot, especially when a white family in front of me were stopped and the kids (about 8 years old) had their belongings searched thoroughly.
You know what happened to me - nothing. Not on a single trip, at ANY point was I singled out, or felt singled out. I had the same security checks as anyone else, but at no point did I get anything 'extra'. And I am Muslim, by birth anyway and Pakistani by parental origin.
So there you go, just an interesting aside.
Asif
12 March 2004, 12:40 PM
#132
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, of course I agree in the main with the principle of what you say, however, these are not ‘normal’ villains we are dealing with here. They don’t abide by any of the rules that you would expect from rational human beings and they certainly don’t adhere to the norms that would be accepted as civilised.
Because of this a new way of dealing with these sorts needs to be found. If this means removing the legal rights accorded to ‘regular’ citizens than so be it. I have nothing to fear from this because I am not plotting the downfall of Western Civilization nor am I a brainwashed pawn in a world wide terrorist network. I don’t believe that hard won liberties and freedoms are under threat, in fact I believe the very opposite to be the case. It’s the defence of those values that is the issue here. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
What we facing from these people with was graphically and horrifically demonstrated yesterday in Madrid. My unfortunate belief is that without radical steps being taken here people and places in the UK will soon suffer a similar fate. To me the protection of the (human) rights of decent law abiding peoples is infinitely more important than those of the anti western fanatics.
Suresh - As for getting your collar felt by security officers when boarding flights, it happened to me no less than three times on flights within the US the last time I was there. I don’t think it has anything to do with the colour of your skin. As far as I’m concerned, if it increases my security, than I’ll put up with it with good grace for as long as it takes. After all, it’s my safety they are looking to protect.
UB
Because of this a new way of dealing with these sorts needs to be found. If this means removing the legal rights accorded to ‘regular’ citizens than so be it. I have nothing to fear from this because I am not plotting the downfall of Western Civilization nor am I a brainwashed pawn in a world wide terrorist network. I don’t believe that hard won liberties and freedoms are under threat, in fact I believe the very opposite to be the case. It’s the defence of those values that is the issue here. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
What we facing from these people with was graphically and horrifically demonstrated yesterday in Madrid. My unfortunate belief is that without radical steps being taken here people and places in the UK will soon suffer a similar fate. To me the protection of the (human) rights of decent law abiding peoples is infinitely more important than those of the anti western fanatics.
Suresh - As for getting your collar felt by security officers when boarding flights, it happened to me no less than three times on flights within the US the last time I was there. I don’t think it has anything to do with the colour of your skin. As far as I’m concerned, if it increases my security, than I’ll put up with it with good grace for as long as it takes. After all, it’s my safety they are looking to protect.
UB
12 March 2004, 12:59 PM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Buck,
I 100% agree with your last post there (as opposed to your first post) We have all become potential victims of terror attacks and I absolutely HATE the terrorists for that, less for myself than for all of my family and friends tbh.
I almost lost 3 members of my family on September 11th (one was so close I can't tell you) and was in shock and tears that afternoon in the middle of my office!
But locking these guys up for the rest of their lives will not ensure that level of security that we all desire. Nor will invading country after country and killing loads of people.
It boils down to finding a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian problem once and for all. The failure (by ALL parties concerned) to find a peaceful solution for EVERYONE in the region for many decades now is the single largest factor in the creation of modern (so called 'Islamic') terrorists. We can sit here and say how wrong they are etc, but they are there and we need to deal with them effectively, more killing is not the answer, a way forward, such as in N Ireland is the only way.
If nothing else its got to be cheaper to find a peaceful solution than to have another war??
Asif
I 100% agree with your last post there (as opposed to your first post) We have all become potential victims of terror attacks and I absolutely HATE the terrorists for that, less for myself than for all of my family and friends tbh.
I almost lost 3 members of my family on September 11th (one was so close I can't tell you) and was in shock and tears that afternoon in the middle of my office!
But locking these guys up for the rest of their lives will not ensure that level of security that we all desire. Nor will invading country after country and killing loads of people.
It boils down to finding a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian problem once and for all. The failure (by ALL parties concerned) to find a peaceful solution for EVERYONE in the region for many decades now is the single largest factor in the creation of modern (so called 'Islamic') terrorists. We can sit here and say how wrong they are etc, but they are there and we need to deal with them effectively, more killing is not the answer, a way forward, such as in N Ireland is the only way.
If nothing else its got to be cheaper to find a peaceful solution than to have another war??
Asif
Last edited by AsifScoob; 12 March 2004 at 01:03 PM.
12 March 2004, 01:14 PM
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can guarantee you though that if Israel ceased to exist and Palestinians lived happily ever after Bin Laden would not stop attacking the US. Terrorists are murders out and out and are not interested in politics and debate. Once a hatred exists it wont leave them. America and its allies will have to face the actions of these terrorists for as long as the terrorists exist. Palestine is just an excuse for them to use 
12 March 2004, 01:18 PM
#135
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that solving the Palestinian problem will stop the terrorists. It really has little to do with Palestine, or Islamic fundamentalism. They would just find (or make up) another reason. Without their causes, they are nothing, bankers, bus drivers, whatever.
There will always be people to take on "the Great Satan" simply because they are the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore a target for the twisted, small minded or simply envious.
This problem is here to stay unfortunately, and we had best think if a way to combat it.
Geezer
There will always be people to take on "the Great Satan" simply because they are the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore a target for the twisted, small minded or simply envious.
This problem is here to stay unfortunately, and we had best think if a way to combat it.
Geezer
12 March 2004, 01:21 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A peaceful solution requires people to accept some things have happened they hate but forgive the perpetrators as a sacrifice in the cause of peace lots of sides will have to make the discoing to forgive and forget but to many hardliners are incapable of letting things go. Releasing scumabgs from northern Ireland prisons helped progress there but with the new wave of terrorism there are too many groups involved and not enough of a cohesive leadership to control the huge number of splinter groups.
Do you think Hamas would stop bombing Israel if they agreed to withdraw from the occupied territory does anyone know if such an offer has been made ?
Do you think Hamas would stop bombing Israel if they agreed to withdraw from the occupied territory does anyone know if such an offer has been made ?
12 March 2004, 01:31 PM
#137
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B20,
I understand what you are saying and its quite possible that is the case. Do you not think it is worth trying though? Please be clear, I AM NOT saying that the Palestinian cause gives Al Q any legitamacy, just saying it as I see it. Even if they dont stop attacking the US large scale support might fall away from the tradional heartland. With no new foor soldiers they will be on the decline.
Bin Laden and the US is a complicated relationship, if you ask me. Bin Laden was supported and helped to fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He was trained by the CIA at the School of the Americas, in Georgia I think, where they train all of their foreign 'friends', and probably why he knows how to evade capture.
Now he hates them with a venom, why? He says it is because of the Palestinians. If this is true there may be something to be gained by resolving this issue, even if it is just lives. My view is that this would be a more successful (and easier) strategy than trying to kill or imprison every Bin Laden supporter etc.
If there was a peace in the Middle East and Al Q was still a threat, just put a price so large on Bin Ladens head that even his Mother will be phoning her local US Embassy. It will still be cheaper than the $2billion a WEEK that the US is spending in Iraq. We must be spending quite a bit too.
Asif
I understand what you are saying and its quite possible that is the case. Do you not think it is worth trying though? Please be clear, I AM NOT saying that the Palestinian cause gives Al Q any legitamacy, just saying it as I see it. Even if they dont stop attacking the US large scale support might fall away from the tradional heartland. With no new foor soldiers they will be on the decline.
Bin Laden and the US is a complicated relationship, if you ask me. Bin Laden was supported and helped to fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He was trained by the CIA at the School of the Americas, in Georgia I think, where they train all of their foreign 'friends', and probably why he knows how to evade capture.
Now he hates them with a venom, why? He says it is because of the Palestinians. If this is true there may be something to be gained by resolving this issue, even if it is just lives. My view is that this would be a more successful (and easier) strategy than trying to kill or imprison every Bin Laden supporter etc.
If there was a peace in the Middle East and Al Q was still a threat, just put a price so large on Bin Ladens head that even his Mother will be phoning her local US Embassy. It will still be cheaper than the $2billion a WEEK that the US is spending in Iraq. We must be spending quite a bit too.
Asif
12 March 2004, 01:38 PM
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
I can guarantee you though that if Israel ceased to exist and Palestinians lived happily ever after Bin Laden would not stop attacking the US. Terrorists are murders out and out and are not interested in politics and debate. Once a hatred exists it wont leave them. America and its allies will have to face the actions of these terrorists for as long as the terrorists exist. Palestine is just an excuse for them to use
What you feel when you are writing your comments does seem to come across very clearly. Heart on sleeve kind of guy.
However you do have a very good point, not often looked at.
Hamas have a Coventant. Any search engine will bring it up. This document clearly states the direction and aims of this so called Islamic orgainisation.
Article 11 states:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
So you see, Israel really is the frontline. It falls, the war will not be over, the battle will only have just started.
12 March 2004, 01:49 PM
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Asif I don't like what Israel is doing to Palestine and think they should get the hell out but I don't honestly think it would stop any terrorism. Islamic Jihad/Hamas etc would still attack Israel just because they are Jews and on their doorstep.
Bin Laden could be captured now if they wanted him in custody. They know where he is but political timing is not right and they will use him by monitoring his every move and communication to travel through his network of terrorism to find out more about the global contacts and intentions he has. Taking him out the link would only cut one head off a many headed monster and wouldn't do anything to stop the global terror, it would only be a moral victory for Bush and to give a face to the public that they recognise but make it more difficult to trace deeper into his network.
Oh and his mum would give him up now if she knew where he is, his family hate him.
You can not erradicate extremism unfortunately, there will always be terrosism in the World, the only thing that can be done is to monitor and track these fanatics and to ruin their every plan.
Bin Laden could be captured now if they wanted him in custody. They know where he is but political timing is not right and they will use him by monitoring his every move and communication to travel through his network of terrorism to find out more about the global contacts and intentions he has. Taking him out the link would only cut one head off a many headed monster and wouldn't do anything to stop the global terror, it would only be a moral victory for Bush and to give a face to the public that they recognise but make it more difficult to trace deeper into his network.
Oh and his mum would give him up now if she knew where he is, his family hate him.
You can not erradicate extremism unfortunately, there will always be terrosism in the World, the only thing that can be done is to monitor and track these fanatics and to ruin their every plan.
12 March 2004, 01:50 PM
#140
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrewdelvard
So you see, Israel really is the frontline. It falls, the war will not be over, the battle will only have just started.
You accuse B20 of being emotional, but you have a fine line in dramatic overstatement yourself.
So are you saying that the Palestinians are going to invade the rest of the World? They cant even hold the Gaza Strip and the West Bank!
Please explain.
Asif
12 March 2004, 02:01 PM
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Andrew we agree on something!
Islams basic fundamental goal is to be the one and only religion of the World. That involves enforcing its culture to every corner of the planet. As religion goes Islam isn't bad, its the extremists who pretend to be Muslims that give the religion a bad name and the biggest downfall of Islam. If you look at the rules of Islam they are a set of highly moral values which would do no one any harm to live by. However not everyone wants to be religious and have ideas shoved down their throat or told how to live. The one value that allows extremists to exploit Islam is Jihad. By saying its ok to fight your enemy is all the extremists need to adopt Islam as their backing for their actions. Once extremists get hold of a set of values such as Islam they will change them to their needs and then say this is how all Muslims should be living. They are not muslims at all but by associating themselves with Islam they do it a great deal of damage.
Islams basic fundamental goal is to be the one and only religion of the World. That involves enforcing its culture to every corner of the planet. As religion goes Islam isn't bad, its the extremists who pretend to be Muslims that give the religion a bad name and the biggest downfall of Islam. If you look at the rules of Islam they are a set of highly moral values which would do no one any harm to live by. However not everyone wants to be religious and have ideas shoved down their throat or told how to live. The one value that allows extremists to exploit Islam is Jihad. By saying its ok to fight your enemy is all the extremists need to adopt Islam as their backing for their actions. Once extremists get hold of a set of values such as Islam they will change them to their needs and then say this is how all Muslims should be living. They are not muslims at all but by associating themselves with Islam they do it a great deal of damage.
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 12 March 2004 at 02:02 PM.
12 March 2004, 02:06 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AsifScoob
Andrew Delvard,
You accuse B20 of being emotional, but you have a fine line in dramatic overstatement yourself.
So are you saying that the Palestinians are going to invade the rest of the World? They cant even hold the Gaza Strip and the West Bank!
Please explain.
Asif
You accuse B20 of being emotional, but you have a fine line in dramatic overstatement yourself.
So are you saying that the Palestinians are going to invade the rest of the World? They cant even hold the Gaza Strip and the West Bank!
Please explain.
Asif
Hamas nor any terrorist organization have any hope of destroying Israel.
Incidentally you seem a little confused. I didn't mention the Palestinians. Only Hamas. Hamas do not enjoy the full support of the Palestinian people, not by any means.
12 March 2004, 02:39 PM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew are you Isreali or Jewish at all ?
You seem to think that Hamas will have continued support even if Isreal withdraws from the occupied territory I think this is the first step to peace and will be the only way to bring about a more normal set of values in palestine. once they have a real quality of life in Palestine they will be much less likely to support the people who are the only ones fighting for their cause. Whenthis happens there is a chance of bringing Hamas mambers to ral justice not just them and their families being blown up by Israeli tanks
You seem to think that Hamas will have continued support even if Isreal withdraws from the occupied territory I think this is the first step to peace and will be the only way to bring about a more normal set of values in palestine. once they have a real quality of life in Palestine they will be much less likely to support the people who are the only ones fighting for their cause. Whenthis happens there is a chance of bringing Hamas mambers to ral justice not just them and their families being blown up by Israeli tanks
12 March 2004, 03:02 PM
#144
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who's decision was it to attack Israel in 1967? (I believe one of 5/6 attacks Israel has endured since it's birth) As this was when Israel took control of the occupied territories for defence purposes who's to say that by giving them back Israel will not be attacked again?
(I'm still of the opinion that unless the land is returned there will no peace however)
(I'm still of the opinion that unless the land is returned there will no peace however)
12 March 2004, 03:26 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Luan Pra bang
Andrew are you Isreali or Jewish at all ?
You seem to think that Hamas will have continued support even if Isreal withdraws from the occupied territory I think this is the first step to peace and will be the only way to bring about a more normal set of values in palestine. once they have a real quality of life in Palestine they will be much less likely to support the people who are the only ones fighting for their cause. When this happens there is a chance of bringing Hamas mambers to ral justice not just them and their families being blown up by Israeli tanks
You seem to think that Hamas will have continued support even if Isreal withdraws from the occupied territory I think this is the first step to peace and will be the only way to bring about a more normal set of values in palestine. once they have a real quality of life in Palestine they will be much less likely to support the people who are the only ones fighting for their cause. When this happens there is a chance of bringing Hamas mambers to ral justice not just them and their families being blown up by Israeli tanks
I dunno maybe you have a point, but unlike most western goverments (and Israel for that matter being the only true democracy in the region) Hamas like any terrorist orgainisation doesn't have an interest in the ballot box.
You know, I immediatly think about whats been happening since Israel withdrew from it's self proclaimed 10 mile secuity buffer zone between Lebanon and Northern Israel/Upper Galilee. Peace hasn't decended in the area. The Katyusha rockets are still coming down on Quiryat Shmona. People are running to the bomb shelters liked they haven't since the 1980s. It hasn't made the difference so many hoped for. I wouldn't be suprised if the IDF went back into Lebanon.
12 March 2004, 04:22 PM
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrewdelvard
No thats not what I meant, sorry. What I'm talking about is the aspirations of Hamas, their ultimate agenda, their goal.
Hamas nor any terrorist organization have any hope of destroying Israel.
Incidentally you seem a little confused. I didn't mention the Palestinians. Only Hamas. Hamas do not enjoy the full support of the Palestinian people, not by any means.
Hamas nor any terrorist organization have any hope of destroying Israel.
Incidentally you seem a little confused. I didn't mention the Palestinians. Only Hamas. Hamas do not enjoy the full support of the Palestinian people, not by any means.
Fair enough, but there is no confusion, Hamas is a Palestinian organisation and I see no real distinction in what I typed. It did help to emphasise the point of my question however, which was sufficient.
Hamas can aspire all it wants, it doesn't really mean anything.
Anyway, back on topic, B20, you may well be right mate, but that is a depressing and sad thought. Do you really think that the strategy of thwarting their plans through good intelligence is a viable long term option.
When do we win?
Asif
12 March 2004, 04:29 PM
#147
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrewdelvard
I dunno maybe you have a point, but unlike most western goverments (and Israel for that matter being the only true democracy in the region) Hamas like any terrorist orgainisation doesn't have an interest in the ballot box.
You know, I immediatly think about whats been happening since Israel withdrew from it's self proclaimed 10 mile secuity buffer zone between Lebanon and Northern Israel/Upper Galilee. Peace hasn't decended in the area. The Katyusha rockets are still coming down on Quiryat Shmona. People are running to the bomb shelters liked they haven't since the 1980s. It hasn't made the difference so many hoped for. I wouldn't be suprised if the IDF went back into Lebanon.
You know, I immediatly think about whats been happening since Israel withdrew from it's self proclaimed 10 mile secuity buffer zone between Lebanon and Northern Israel/Upper Galilee. Peace hasn't decended in the area. The Katyusha rockets are still coming down on Quiryat Shmona. People are running to the bomb shelters liked they haven't since the 1980s. It hasn't made the difference so many hoped for. I wouldn't be suprised if the IDF went back into Lebanon.
You're absolutely right, a much more far reaching, strategic peace policy is what is needed, taking into account ALL the nations in the area, one that gets them all talking to each other, then ultimtely trading with each other, and simply getting on with their lives.
This is not beyond us and I thinkk is the only real long term solution.
Israel did invade Lebanon in '82 I think, but then left with their tails between their legs. Not sure even Sharon would consider that again.
A peace that ensure security for Israel and its neighbours is the only way. Otherwise we might as well just blow everything to pieces.
Asif
12 March 2004, 04:33 PM
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Asif unfortunately my personal opinion is that viable doesn't come into it, merely its the only option. As soon as you take a terrorist or bunch of terrorists off the streets they are no sooner replaced by others. Its an endless supply while these fanatics bring up children thinking their sick and twisted way
There is no way of a final win. It will be a constant battle only helped by the advancement of technology and intelligence techniques to keep one step ahead of their plans.
There is no way of a final win. It will be a constant battle only helped by the advancement of technology and intelligence techniques to keep one step ahead of their plans.
12 March 2004, 05:07 PM
#149
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AsifScoob
Fair enough, but there is no confusion, Hamas is a Palestinian organisation and I see no real distinction in what I typed. It did help to emphasise the point of my question however, which was sufficient.
]Hamas can aspire all it wants, it doesn't really mean anything.
Be quick though I think they close a 6.
Last edited by andrewdelvard; 12 March 2004 at 05:09 PM.
12 March 2004, 06:03 PM
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UB,
If they really are terrorists then they deserve short shrift, and should be locked away. If that cannot be proved than they should not be confined until there is real proof or if they do something or attempt to do something that they should not. Locking someone up when they have not done anything that can be proved wrong just should not happen. Assumptions are not proof and are very dangerous to our future liberty and rights in law if acted upon in that way.
I would be very surprised if these guys are not watched very carefully from now on.
Les
If they really are terrorists then they deserve short shrift, and should be locked away. If that cannot be proved than they should not be confined until there is real proof or if they do something or attempt to do something that they should not. Locking someone up when they have not done anything that can be proved wrong just should not happen. Assumptions are not proof and are very dangerous to our future liberty and rights in law if acted upon in that way.
I would be very surprised if these guys are not watched very carefully from now on.
Les