gsm1

It's wrong-period and most of these guys were not even picked up in a war zone. You can't have one rule for some and another for others. Even the father of Begg has been saying that if his son is guilty then he should be prosecuted, but by a court where the offences are proven.

To the OP, I haven't seen anyone putting any bunting out for their return.

BTW..I don't wear sandals and I ain't a liberal.

..and yes I did fall out of the wrong side of bed this morning.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Ken Bigley
Margaret Hassan
Kim Il Sun

Fair Play???

Forcing the Ban on Fox Hunting through parliment? = Democracy???

Convicted terrorist = Gerry Adams / Martin MacGuinness???

The world is gone mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suresh

You've got to admit that three years in Cuba beats the hell out of having your head cut off with a blunt bread knife!


I wonder if they can be detained under the 'Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001'? Maybe the government will bang them up in Belmarsh, which as you say would be a decent democratic process and would indeed say it all.....

gsm1

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

Please keep this on track and forget stereo typing. I don't want to have to vape an entire thread that's quite genuine and reasonable due to a couple of users and their views. Please keep these views to yourselves

Thanks

carl

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -- William Blackstone

FWIW my wife has a Muslim name, a British passport and a British birth certificate. Is she any less "British" than me? My family are British by default, her family chose to be British.

PS: to the thread originator -- it's "Britons" not "Britains". As I can use the language better than you, I must be more "British"

TheBigMan

People with an non-british background can only really be termed British if they do not complain that certain things are offensive to them.

E.g. the people that complained about scantily clad women on a poster near their house as offensive. They are not British - and they are the people that **** off alot of other people.

If you don't like it here.......

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

On that basis they can only claim to be British if they are ugly, over-weight, drink too much, get involved in punch-ups, are lazy, thieving and think football is a game for adults.

M

fatscoobyfella

Excellent insight into oneself??

I gotta say though you describe me to a tee !!

morpheus1870

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigMan

People with an non-british background can only really be termed British if they do not complain that certain things are offensive to them

Sorry mate but that is a load of S*$%!



This is exactly what I am talking about, ignorant zombies that only choose to take in small bits of information beamed through their T.V. boxes into their small sized Neanderthal brains .



The posters you are referring to about were found to be offensive by a small number of a certain community, who found this type of material plastered right next to their place of worship a little inappropriate...quite similar to groups that found posters displaying the **** slogan offensive.... and going even further back some groups found United Colours of Beneton shock advertising methods offensive.... are these people not British because they find something offensive the majority don't??



Bottom line is we live in a society where people have different views and opinions just like your self, sometimes we disagree with these views however we must remember that even though we may not agree with peoples beliefs, we should respect their difference of opinions...this not only makes us democratic but also British!

TheBigMan

tiz a good point.

TheBigMan

[QUOTE=morpheus1870]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigMan

People with an non-british background can only really be termed British if they do not complain that certain things are offensive to them QUOTE]

Near their place of worship??...........IN ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, in fact no I am not sorry. If they don't like it sod off and do us all a favour.

With regards to respecting others' opinions. Maybe as they are living in England - perhaps they need to respect ours.

morpheus1870

Why dont you do us all a favour too...

TheBigMan

Ok I shall.


Happy f£cking ramadam.

MJW

Out of the four detainees, one was arrested in Kunduz, Afghanistan, two in Pakistan and one in Zambia.

Alas

I was wondering if anyone would bother with the facts
Alas

Jerome

Shhhh!

We can't let the facts get in the way of a good SN ding dong!

fatscoobyfella

Has anyone found out what these people were actually doing in these various places?

the moose

No, because they've never been given a chance to explain themselves. They may well be terrorists, but equally, they may just have been in the wrong place(s) at at the wrong time.

The whole point of a trial is to establish fact ...... and given some of the ignorant cr@p spouted here, they'll be adjudged guilty by the rabble-rousing redtops regardless of the outcome.

Jap2Scrap

How's that? 3 years in a US military establishment and they've never been asked? Has it ever occurred to you that they may not have been able to give satisfactory reasons for being there? I'm just responding to the quote above btw, I don't believe they should have been held without charges for that sort of time. Days yes, to gather evidence maybe in something as serious as this, but years? Never justifiable.

I don't understand how the US kept them for 3 years anyway. Especially as the UK government has been told it's breaking international law to hold terrorist suspects without charges. To be honest I don't trust a thing the US does nowadays. Read 'New Pearl Harbor', which lists timelines and FACTS from the time around 9/11 and there's no way you wouldn't believe the US were complicit in the WTC attacks and all that has happened since.

tiggers

Although the SN opinion generally seems to be how all those held at Guantanamo are as pure as the driven snow and the Americans are a nasty bunch of warmongering fools I think that the reality is a rather more common problem.

Being simplistic what we have here is the same situation that we see time and time again in a less dramatic way within everyday society and that is where we have people who we know to be criminals, but we don't have sufficient evidence to prove it. The problem is that in everyday society the likelihood of them stealing another car has a little less catastrophic consequences than many of those held at Guantanamo who may just choose to down another skyscraper.

Of course there will be those there who shouldn't be there at all as mistakes are always made and in an ideal world all of them should be considered innocent until proven guilty and without sufficient evidence for a trial they should of course have been released long ago, but then again in an ideal world people wouldn't fly planes into skyscrapers would they now?

Not saying it's right, but equally I don't know what the answer is.

Once thing I will say is that with reading many of the comments on here about this and other anti-terrorist measures you really would think 9/11 never happened. Open your eyes folks - we do not live in a nice world I'm afraid.

Regards,

tiggers.

suprabeast

Can you imagine the french banning all this stuff for the minorities?? Only in Britain unfortunately

Brendan Hughes

Oh FFS tiggers, don't you start. If you're going to quote 9/11 and imply that these people are responsible, you might at least question why the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia where 19 of the 20 hijackers came from, rather than pissing about in Afghanistan, failing spectacularly to find Osama bin Laden, and then putting unbelievable amounts of resources into toppling the non-threat Saddam Hussein instead.

Spare us all the Fox News insinuations, you're smarter than that.

tiggers

Sorry Brendan, it's a public BBS and I will 'start' if I want to.

As for implying these people as being responsible for 9/11 I didn't - I was simply pointing out we live in a world where 9/11 did happen and could happen again hence why nations such as the US are behaving in this way.

Maybe you'd rather wait until it happens again eh? Funny, I thought you were smarter than that

tiggers.

Leslie

The whole point about Guantanamo is that it is virtually the same set up as the German concentration camps which were used to hold political prisoners before and during the 2nd World War. It is convenient for the States since they can say it is not subject to the laws for holding prisoners such as Habeas Corpus or the Geneva convention. This of course is a cop out and IMHO a shameful episode in modern history.

In a fully democratic society, such as the USA states is the best way to run a country, if you can believe that is how things really are over there, no one should be held prisoner purely on suspicion for the length of time these people have had to endure. If you do not have enough solid evidence to charge them, then they should be released.

The conditions under which these prisoners are held are also disgraceful, their treatment is nothing to be proud of by any measure.

Les

Brendan Hughes

You didn't imply it? Read the first of your sentences that I quoted. "...than many of those held at Guantanamo who may just choose to down another skyscraper".

Wait until it happens again? No. But all the armed forces that are in Iraq, I would have sent to the Afghan/Pakistani border instead. All the intelligence that is in Iraq, I would have concentrated in the same place. I'd go for the source of the problem - Osama bin Laden - rather than pratting about with Iraq.

Unfortunately the world politicians choose to do differently as they are more interested in short-term public adulation by a nice quick won war rather than actually removing the threat. Result? OBL still at large, the threat is still there, no matter how many towelheads are in jumpsuits in Cuba.

Hope that's stupid enough for you

Flatcapdriver

Don't be ridiculous. What is the point of entering into this debate if you can't either make constructive points or counter arguments without resorting to insinuations about opposing view points that are simply untrue.

I don't see anyone advocating a fair trial for these people taking the opinion that they are pure as the driven snow. It's simply a case of allowing them a trial to ascertain the facts and I'm surprised that anyone can object to that - assuming that they've thought things through.

If you believe its acceptable to hold detainees (for want of a better word) for years on end without trial then you're on a slippery slope towards the beheadings that have taken place in Iraq. It simply becomes DIY justice which inevitably leads to anarchy.

For those who lack sympathy for individuals wandering around countries against Foreign Office advice, I can only presume that you have no sympathy for the likes of Ken Bigley and others who have been murdered as they simply ignored FO advice.

johnfelstead

Pretty stuned by some of the racist posts in this thread. Since when has a surname shown you to be British? I have Tai and Kenyan based surnames in my family via my brothers and sisters partners, both of which are as British as me. How far back do you want to go to take British surnames, i have Italian and Irish decendants a few generations back, yet my surname goes back to the middle ages in Britain via the male line of my decendants. My Great uncle was on TV on monday, he's 90 and has an Italian surname, yet he was born in the UK and was an RAF Pilot in WW2, is he not British?

It's incredibly sad to see racism showing it's ugly face this day and age, it's not that long ago we were learning the lessons of the Holocaust, something that took root because a racist stereotype was allowed to be turned into generic hate.

With regards to these detainees, the US Supreme court ruled recently that what the US government was doing in Cuba was Illegal, and all detainees had a right to fair trial and representation, this is why detainees are now being released, because the US Government has been forced to comply with law. In the UK we too are holding people without trial or representation, the house of Lords, Law Lords have ruled this too is illegal and you will see these people either deported or charged fairly soon, it's the priority of the new secretary of state to sort out as the UK government is currently acting illegally.

Some of you people need to wake up and get an education. It's far too easy for us to lose our liberties and rights when you have a perpetual war being rammed down our throut. The war on Terror is just that, a war with no end, it's esential we dont allow this perpetual war to be used to undermine our basic human rights.

tiggers

The pedant in me won't let it lie. Another skyscraper could go down, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same people bringing it down.

Anyway I think you're picking on a figure of speech - my point is that I don't imagine those being held at Guantanamo have just been plucked off the streets randomly. As I said in my post I don't know what the answer is, but leaving them to roam around the world doing as they see fit probably isn't a good idea.

My reference to 9/11 is more to point out that the rulebook was kind of rewritten that day - the world changed and I'm not sure we know quite by how much yet.

tiggers.

tiggers

Apologies for the flippancy and sorry you can't see that is was meant at least a little bit tongue in cheek!