Guantanamo "britains" return home....
#121
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
----------------------
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
#122
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jap2Scrap
From the evidence it would seem that the well-prepared individuals in question were the Bush administration. No amount of planning by terrorists in an Afghan cave could have guaranteed the number of "coincidental" failures in procedure that were needed for 9/11 to succeed.
Just a few:
Important intelligence from the UK and Russia specifically detailing the type of attack in question ignored.
Military planes not scrambled, as per regulations, in situation where a civilian plane goes off course and loses radio contact. Not once but at least 3 times that day.
Pentagon missile defence system not operating.
White House missile defence system not operating (Flight 77 would have been within it's envelope - if it was indeed Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon)
Those are just some of the things which it's been admitted have failed on that day, and that day only.
I took it slightly off topic maybe, but I for one can easily believe that an American administration whose culpability in the attack is in question could justify holding the men without feeling the need to prove or disprove their innocence. In fact I'm surprised they even bothered to try and justify themselves.
Just a few:
Important intelligence from the UK and Russia specifically detailing the type of attack in question ignored.
Military planes not scrambled, as per regulations, in situation where a civilian plane goes off course and loses radio contact. Not once but at least 3 times that day.
Pentagon missile defence system not operating.
White House missile defence system not operating (Flight 77 would have been within it's envelope - if it was indeed Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon)
Those are just some of the things which it's been admitted have failed on that day, and that day only.
I took it slightly off topic maybe, but I for one can easily believe that an American administration whose culpability in the attack is in question could justify holding the men without feeling the need to prove or disprove their innocence. In fact I'm surprised they even bothered to try and justify themselves.
Which geeky bloke were you in the X files?
#124
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.
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.
#127
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...
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...
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#129
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 2005 sso, 1/4 finals,3rd in 60ft; 2004 sso,semi finals,2nd in 60ft time; 2003 standard car 2nd 60ft
Posts: 4,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chip
They do if you live in Birmingham though
Chip
Chip
#130
Originally Posted by moses
welcome back the 4 heroes of guatanamo
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.
#131
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
Which geeky bloke were you in the X files?
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.
#132
Well said
Originally Posted by 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...
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...
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
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by GCollier
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?
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.
#134
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#135
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
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 )
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 )
#136
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#137
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Geezer
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.
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.
Last edited by Brendan Hughes; 27 January 2005 at 10:26 AM.
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
#139
Originally Posted by 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
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
The problem is when bloody religion rears its head and intervenes.
#140
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#141
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
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
#142
Originally Posted by 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
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
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.
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lots of different places! (Thank you Mr. Lambert)
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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
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
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.
#144
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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. "
"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. "
#145
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#147
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier I am not sure what can be done about it one way or the other - it's a difficult call.
"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. "
"Washington had claimed all four were "enemy combatants" who trained at camps run by al-Qaeda. "
They also said Saddam Hussein was going to nuke the western world.
#148
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
#149
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lots of different places! (Thank you Mr. Lambert)
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#150
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
Les