moses

garys post
----------------------
Moses, assuming your suggestion is correct and they were "freedom fighters" with a right to defend themselves against US and British soldiers, why should they be welcomed home as "heroes"? Anyone British citizen who takes up arms against soldiers of this country is a criminal, arguably guilty of treason. Whose side are you actually on?
---------

either your blinded by your narrow mind or maybe u didnt undersand gary .


if they were freedomfighters, and also they were their long time before the americans and brits went their, and if the usa army and british soldiers were out to shoot them, u saying they should just get shot and not defend themselves.

no.
everyone has a right to defend themselves, the usa and british invaded them didnt they.


and if u happened to be in afghanistan helping the tribes to defeat a fellow tribe and it happens that scum tribe allies themselves with the usa and british and helps them invade and go and hunt u guys, gary if the soldiers point a gun at u to shoot u and not spare u, would u just stand their or let them shoot u, or would u say oh come on fellow brits shoot me i wont shoot back.



gary if i invaded your home and was gonna harm u, would u not defend yourself against a fellow brit like me, or would u just give in

tell me , its so simple.


yes their hero's after what they went through in gutanamo bay, away from their families and tortured, their very brave.

or if u just want a narrow minded baiting game

help yourself

scoobynutta555

Which geeky bloke were you in the X files?

SiDHEaD

ROFL!

GCollier

Moses,

I believe that everyone is entitled to defend themselves and fight for what they believe in.

When someone finds themselves on the opposite side of a conflict to British soldiers, it's time to make a choice - irrespective of "who got their first", where do their loyalties lie?

If they want to pledge loyalty to an Afghan tribe and to fight the British then that is their right.

But why they should get a heroes welcome in the country they were fighting against is beyond me. How can Britain even be considered "home" under such circumstances?

Gary.

TheBigMan

cos it's a ****hole.

Tiggs

should have helped them avoid the press at the airport.......by getting of the plane early!

fatscoobyfella

Well i reckon were about 50/50 on this over the SN board..do i take this is a fair populas of the country? I reckon that if 50% of people are against the "cause" then there is a lot for it.
Im very suprised that people are gettin shouted down on here coz of what they think or believe is to be right.

All is say is stick by what ya believe in...

warrenm2

Interesting point Gary, but my reading of this whole thing is not so much how British they are, but rather how blatently illegal it is to hold someone for 3 years without trial...... If they're found guilty, I'd be the first to throw away the key

scooby-si

lol

mad_dr

Yeah - welcome home lads...

If they feel that Afghanistan is their home, when do you think they'll be going back to that 'home' Moses?

Or is England their home now? If so, why is it OK that they were fighting against it? I'm confused: where do these people call 'home'?

If they wanted to fight against the allies that's fine but they shouldn't expect to be welcome in the country they were fighting against.

Anyway - they shouldn't have been captured. The yanks should have shot the lot of them. Problem solved.

Jap2Scrap

Oiiiiiii lol

I'm not drawing conclusions just stating facts. There were a hell of a lot of coincidences needed to work out that day for it to be a 'success'. If they weren't coincidences that only leaves 3 options.

1. The USA is really that incompetent: in which case how come no one has ever been brought to task over that incompetence, indeed most of the heads of the relevant organisations have since been promoted.

2. The US administration allowed it to happen: There was a well publicised memo in the months before 9/11 stating that a 'New Pearl Harbor' was just what America needed.

3. The US administration assisted in making it happen...

Remember, the only conspiracy theories worth believing are the true ones.. What the hell does that mean? Early isn't it.. Oh I best get on with some work..

Anyway.. you choose.

Suresh

Well said that man.

If these heros don't feel that they need to integrate with British norms and values, then why don't they just leave and go to a place where they are wanted?

The dream of a multi-cultural society in the Netherlands lies in tatters thanks to the actions of Islamic extremists and the discussion here is now about how to force people to integrate and take on the values of their chosen home.

Fit in or **** off!

Rant over (for now)

Suresh

Brendan Hughes

Not so cut and dried, I'm afraid. I think these guys were picked up during the invasion of Afghanistan, so the following argument doesn't apply. However, if it was during the war in Iraq, that was a clearly illegal war, opposed by many British people, where the British army (and US etc etc) were at fault. We only have victors' justice - if they'd lost, they would have been tried and found guilty of war crimes. In such circumstances, although I am 100% British (except by behaviour) I wouldn't have a problem being on the opposite side to British soldiers.

I've also read an excellent article on the elections in Ukraine, and how the Ministry of Interior were about to send in troops to unblock the parliament building when it was barracaded by protestors, after Yanukovich was supposedly "elected". Those people would have been on the wrong side of their soldiers - does that make them wrong, or less Ukrainian?

I'm bending your argument slightly, but I hope you get the point - the soldier does not make the nationality.

Geezer

Surely, on a technical point, no matter what you believe in, or the possibilities of whether the war was legal or not, if you take up arms against the forces of the Crown, it is treason.

Am I missing something here?

OK, maybe they should have had a trial in USA, but I doubt that any US or British soldiers would have had a trial at the hands of these people had they been captured. Nick Berg et al will never get the release that these people got.

War is unpleasant, these people should not expect a picninc if they choose to enter one, especially as they have taken up arms against their 'home' nation.

Geezer

Brendan Hughes

Classic.

In the one corner: "If these heros don't feel that they need to integrate with British norms and values, then why don't they just leave and go to a place where they are wanted?"

In the other corner: "OK, maybe they should have had a trial in USA, but I doubt that any US or British soldiers would have had a trial at the hands of these people had they been captured. Nick Berg et al will never get the release that these people got."

So which is it to be? British values, or treat them like they'd treat us? You can't have both.



(Treason - good point, can't answer, don't know )

Geezer

Brendan, this is the problem though, these people use the notion of British values to protect them, yet choose to discard them on a whim when it suits them.

What it ulitmately boils down to is that if you choose to turn against your nation, then you should have no right to seek it's protection should things not go your way.

The whole business of what happened at Guantanemo is pretty irrelevant to the argument, injustice and war go hand in hand I'm afraid.

Geezer

Brendan Hughes

So why have these people not been charged with treason upon their return to the UK?

What it ultimately boils down to is that, in the eyes of the police and the CPS THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG ACCORDING TO UK LAW - or they're so smart that they've hidden all the evidence - but despite this, the Sun-reading populace want to demonise them and drop them out of a plane mid-Atlantic.

Jesus, why does everyone on here say they're guilty of something when even the police and the CPS don't think so? Even the Americans couldn't charge them with anything, after 3 YEARS of interrogation? It was my first contribution to this thread, and it still hasn't been answered.

Just like many people, if they're guilty of planting bombs in subways etc, sit them in the chair and I'll be the first to pull the switch. But according to all evidence gathered, they have done pretty much zilch.

Dracoro

As previously stated (and no doubt ignored as it doesn't fit in with peoples arguements ) and as I read it on the bbc weblink posted early on (the 'dodgy guys') the Zambian guy was in Zambia where he was picked up. The reason being that someone else had his passport in the war affected area. There may be another reason or whatever but we are not being told. Just imagine if you 'John Smith' got arrested and thrown into jail without trial because someone was using your identity elsewhere. Or would that be 'ok' as it's all part of the war effort or the 'greater good' etc.

The FACT is we DON'T KNOW what the facts are so personally, I won't judge one way or another. If you think they're guilty, offer proof (NOT speculation), trial them in the proper manner (and I don't mean the SN kangaroo court).

555wrx

Well said. As far as I am concerned, it dosent matter if you are a christian, catholic, jew, hindu, krishna etc etc..... If you are born in Britain, then you should accept British values as Britain is YOUR country. The same should stand whatever country you are born in.
The problem is when bloody religion rears its head and intervenes.

Dracoro

My parents were born & bred in Britain. I've lived here since 10 months old, however I was born in Zambia. So I'm British blooded, lived here nearly all my life yet you think I should accept Zambia as my country, not Britain?

Leslie

Tiggers,

Yes I understand your concern that they might commit a terrorist act, but we cannot say that they will do that because there is insufficient evidence to charge them.

As someone said, that is the way the law works and to give governments the power that they are asking for, ie. to hold peole purely on suspicion is too much and far far too dangerous.

Les

Suresh

Les,

Hope you don't mind me butting in here.
My opinion is that law is obviously insufficient to protect us against those who would do harm against us. What happened in Madrid last year is not part of a fanciful conspiracy by US authorities that the more imaginitive here would have us believe.

So what's is clearly needed is a change in the law that changes the burdan of proof in cases of terrorism. I hate to see my freedom eroded too, which is why the change in the law should be temporary in nature (say 2 years at a time) and automatically repealed at the end of that term.

Suresh

P.S. My freedom is already eroded as anyone with dark(er) skin going across any international border already knows. Provided I am questioned with decency and respect, I have no problem whatsoever with any extra checks that are deemed necessay.

tiggers

As Suresh says the law is insufficient to protect us in the genuine cases where insufficient evidence is available to prosecute a terrorist (not saying that this applies to all those in Guantanamo or those who have just returned to Britain, but it must do to some).

Legally all we can do is release people such as this, but surely in the genuine cases I am talking about that is just as dangerous.

As I said earlier I am not sure what can be done about it one way or the other - it's a difficult call.

tiggers.

unclebuck

"The four men who have been released by UK police a day after returning from Guantanamo Bay still pose a security risk, US defence officials have said."

"Washington had claimed all four were "enemy combatants" who trained at camps run by al-Qaeda. "

but...

"They were released after UK police concluded there was not enough evidence to charge them with any offence. "

Geezer

Well, I don't suppose there is a law which states you cannot fight the US.

My earlier statement about treason is invalid now I think about it anyway, they were picked up by US forces in clashes with US forces, so I suppose you could argue that they did not actually commit an offence against the UK or it's armed forces.

However, I'm sure that if it had been UK forces they came into contact with, they would not have cared. It's unfortunate that this sort of loophole allows them to be released because technically they haven't commited any offence in UK law, and as POWs the US couldn't really hold onto them for ever.

For all the technicalities involved, I cannot believe anyone thinks that these people were out there for any other purpose than the resistance of coalition forces and support of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Geezer

Dracoro

You're missing crucial points again. e.g. one of the guys was NOT out there, he was in a completely different country in africa. someone else had his id and led (somehow) to his capture.

gsm1

No, it isn't a difficult call. Your argument can apply to absolutely anyone - from any terrorist group worldwide to those suspected of rape, murder etc. If you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence - it's that simple.

UB, Do you really think the Americans were going to say any different having held them for 3 years?
They also said Saddam Hussein was going to nuke the western world.

gsm1

And two of them were in Pakistan. Handed over by that great beacon of democracy and friend of the USA, President Musharraf.

tiggers

OK so hypothetically speaking you'd sleep quite happily after seeing someone you know is a rapist/murderer set free simply because ther isn't suffficient evidence despite the fact that person's next victim could be your wife, girlfriend, daughter ....

That's the point I'm making. I agree that in an ideal world you can't incarcerate people indefinitely without a trial and if you can't bring them to trial due to lack of evidence then you have to let them go. However, if you know they are likely to commit a terrorist atrocity once they are free again it most definitely *IS* a difficult call, at least in my opinion.

tiggers.

Leslie

How do you know that they are going to commit a terrorist act if you don't have enough evidence to charge them though? Mere suspicion due to extraneous circumstances is not enough.

Les