A report from the independent panel of experts commisioned by the U.N. has concluded that Guantanamo Bay should be "shut down without further delay" and that torture is practised there.
John Sentamu, Archbishop of York said yesterday " To hold someone for up to four years without charge indicates a society heading towards George Orwell's Animal Farm"
What do you think?

There seems to be a gathering tide of opinion that 'Gitmo' (as the Americans call it) should be closed down. Indeed, it is becoming something of a cause celebre amongst assorted liberal/left groups, international organisations, archbishops and celebrity consciences of one kind or another.

I dissent from this popular view. We should remember, firstly, why the detainees are there - i.e. they were caught as enemy combatants on a battlefield. They were not wearing uniforms and were part of the military complex of a vicious terrorist network which still poses a threat to our societies. I don't buy into the argument that most of them were there by accident (e.g. the story of the 'Tipton Taliban' that they went to Pakistan for a computer course and then inadvertantly found themselves on the wrong side of the border). The ones with any kind of remotely plausible explanation as to why they were there in the first place have already been released. The ones left in Gitmo are the 'hard core' which are judged by the Americans as still presenting a danger of terrorist recidivism if they were to be released.

As for Gitmo being some kind of concentration camp or torture centre, I suggest that people ought to read more about how it functions before commenting. The US is well aware of the negative publicity surrounding Gitmo, so that if anything conditions there are a lot better than in US prisons. The inmates are divided into three categories (A, B and C). The first two categories have lots of privileges whereas the category Cs are judged to be uncooperative and are given fewer privileges. Moreover, a new 'state of the art' facility is being built to replace the temporary facilities which have figured so prominently in newspaper reports.

As for the issue of being denied due process and locked up without trial, well they are in a similar position here to prisoners of war. They were enemy combatants caught on the battlefield and, given the context in which they were found, were lucky not to have been shot out of hand by the Afghan anti-Taliban forces at the time.

If the British captured a German soldier in 1939 then he would have been held captive (without a trial) until at least 1945, and more probably 1946/1947. The general principle is that we are "at war" and so we have to confine enemy combatents until that war is over. The fact that the enemy do not wear a uniform or fight in a standard battlefield makes them harder to find and hard to differentiate from civilians. I understand that mistakes will be made and that the odd innocent will be locked up. Having said all that, I don't like the way that this camp is being run, where the prisoners are certainly tortured and think it highly likely that they have a higher than necessary proportion of innocents.

If the British captured a German soldier in 1939 then he would have been held captive (without a trial) until at least 1945, and more probably 1946/1947. The general principle is that we are "at war" and so we have to confine enemy combatents until that war is over. The fact that the enemy do not wear a uniform or fight in a standard battlefield makes them harder to find and hard to differentiate from civilians. I understand that mistakes will be made and that the odd innocent will be locked up. Having said all that, I don't like the way that this camp is being run, where the prisoners are certainly tortured and think it highly likely that they have a higher than necessary proportion of innocents.

Whilst I normally have v little respect for John Simpson, occasionally even he cant mess up the facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4708946.stm

US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.

Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation

Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.

In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.

Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.


Now how many did the US actually capture as 'enemy combatants' ?

According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.

Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.

"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties.

I agree that if someone is captured during a 'fight', then yes he can be held until the end of hostilities. Being held does not equate to be tortured.

However its clear for any person of reason to see that most of these individuals were just ordinary folks who were handed in for 'Bounties'.

The fact that the US Govt want us to believe that these are the 'worst of the worst' goes to show how desperate they are in spinning both this war, and their conduct.

By their own standards set at the Nuremburg trials, the US is committing war crimes.

What is really amazing about this so called war is the fact that the so called terrorists have been more truthful than the US Govt !

Rumsfeld is making brain dead comments like

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we — our country, our government — has not adapted,"

"In some cases, military public affairs officials have had little communications training and little, if any, grounding in the importance of timing and rapid response, and the realities of digital and broadcast media,"

He then talks about how the US must increase its propoganda, which is ironic after all the stories of US 'placing' stories in the media as part of its PsyOps.

The ones with any kind of remotely plausible explanation as to why they were tre in the first place have already been released. The ones left in Gitmo are the 'hard core' which are judged by the Americans as still presenting a danger of terrorist recidivism if they were to be released

Does that include the guy who just happened to have the same name as the person they were looking for and ended up in the camp for two years before the authorities could even be bothered checking the veracity of his relatives claim that they had the wrong guy.

I very much doubt that you know the ins and outs of every case in Guantanamo, so why is it you feel qualified to fly in the face of the vast majority of evidence with your assertions here?

As for the claims that you know all about how the prisoners are treated - that seems strange to me, as not even UN inspectors were allowed access to the inmates. Unless you believe that just because the camp commandants say something, then it is true - how can you possibly know?

Finally a ''cause celebre among assorted left/liberal groups'' is it? That puts the leaders of the conservative party on the left now.

This is a bit of a departure from your usually reasoned arguments.

Great posting Zafar, I'll be interested to see what LordChaverly makes of that lot - it seems to refute much of what he said to me. Donkey rightly points out that LordC is usually pretty reasoned in his assesments.

A case of "the liberals think X, so I'll think Y" ?

A case of "the liberals think X, so I'll think Y" ?
Surely not TeaFan? The very thought! (as LordC himself might say........)

Great posting Zafar, I'll be interested to see what LordChaverly makes of that lot - it seems to refute much of what he said to me. Donkey rightly points out that LordC is usually pretty reasoned in his assesments.


The US is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Nearly every claim made by the US in the context of this supposed war has been either misleading or a blatant lie.

Whats the old saying about lies ? something like you need to make a 1000 lies to cover the original lie ?

There seems to be a gathering tide of opinion that 'Gitmo' (as the Americans call it) should be closed down. Indeed, it is becoming something of a cause celebre amongst assorted liberal/left groups, international organisations, archbishops and celebrity consciences of one kind or another.

I dissent from this popular view. We should remember, firstly, why the detainees are there - i.e. they were caught as enemy combatants on a battlefield.


There's a whole group of Chinese refugees (minority group muslim chinese) still in there - who are certainly not combatants.

Others are there after being sold to US troops by 'mercenaries' - more likely the result of internecine grudges.

So, some of them were enemy combatants but certainly not all and the US administration confirms this. But the problem with Guantanamo is much larger. Essentially the US has created an extralegal system that extends to more than this one concentration camp alone. It's not a Gulag Archipelago. Yet.

Well, this is one gauntlet which will not go unpicked up. I have been challenged to justify my erstwhile (and extremely unfashionable) defence of Gitmo and am pleased to oblige. I will deal with the posts above in reverse order of cogency, starting with Phan’s.

Firstly, if you look at the US definition of ‘enemy combatant’ (which actually embraces various categories) then it pretty much embraces every single detainee left in Gitmo (I suggest you look at the attached url to see the declassified files of the Combatant Status Review Board, which contain definitions of this term and justifications of its use in relation to each detainee. The document is 93 pages long, but worth looking at ). The mistake here is to assume that an ‘enemy combatant’ must of necessity be a rifle wielding soldier, whereas it could mean also members or associates of terrorist networks, or persons commiting belligerent acts or supporting hostilities in aid of enemy forces. The US administration therefore certainly does not ‘confirm’ that ‘not all were enemy combatants’. Indeed, it has gone out of its way to prove the very opposite by declassifying Combatant Status Review Board documents.

As for your reference to Gitmo being a ‘concentration camp’ I do hope you are not inferring that it bears any reference to the Nazi death camps. In fact, there has not been a single fatality amongst the detainees since Gitmo opened. Indeed, the detainees have access to medical facilities which are probably far superior to any they have experienced before. Its not a Gulag Archipelago yet? Indeed it is not and never will be. I suggest you read or re-read works on the Soviet gulags, where millions were forced to work in slave labour conditions on starvation rations, before making such sweepingly absurd statements (Solzhenitsyn is still a very good source for info on the gulags). By contrast, the Gitmo detainees not only do not have to work, they are provided with at least three meals a day, appropriate to their faith including a choice of menu for many detainees), plus access to leisure and recreational facilities, including reading material and chess games. The Soviet gulags expanded and expanded until they contained millions of people. By contrast, the number of detainees in Gitmo has declined for over 700 to about 500 now and will probably decline still further. I would go as far as to say that, if all of the PoW camps which have ever existed in previous conflicts were miraculously made adjacent to Gitmo, I think it highly probable that the prisoners in those camps would swop places with Gitmo inmates in an instant.

As for the ‘Chinese refugees’, presumably you are referring to the Uighurs, i.e. Islamic separatists, who have been likened to the Chechens in relation to involvement in terrorism. Of course, not all Uighurs are terrorists, but there is a substantial amount of evidence that Islamicist militants within this group have indeed been involved in terrorist acts and have been mentioned in various reports on global terrorism for well over a decade.

As for the statistics produced by Zafar, these derive from a recent study by a New Jersey law professor, Mark Denbeaux, who is representing two of the inmates. It has been extensively quoted on the web and elsewhere as representing an authoritative study of the Gitmo detainees. It is certainly not an unbiased study (Denbeaux is acting for two of the detainees) and is in fact heavily skewed and based on questionable inferences from the department of defense data he uses (derived from the url included below). The same figures (for example, of only 8% of detainees being Al Qaida fighters) are mentioned again and again. This is what I call a Michael Moore statistic, because it ignores all of the other categories within the definition of ‘enemy combatant’. Indeed, even if you take all of Denbeaux’s inferences at face value (i.e. including associates, as well as members, of terrorist networks, then) at the very least 98% of the inmates are within the enemy combatant category (i.e. 8% ‘fighters’; 30% ‘members’ and 60% ‘associates’ of terrorist organizations – these are from his own figures). He admits himself in his study that only 2% have not been identified as having no identifiable link to a named terrorist organization.

As for the fact that most detainees were not captured by US forces on the battlefield, well, before they were sent to Gitmo and since, every single one has been periodically screened by the Combatant Status Review Board and specific reasons given for their continued detention. We should remember that Afghanistan in the days of the Taliban was a magnet for Islamicist fanatics from all over the world and many thousands of them attended terrorist training camps, including probably several hundred from the UK. I doubt very much whether they all miraculously disappeared prior to the invasion, or were killed in its aftermath. Of course, without seeing all of the evidence, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment in individual cases. But as I said in a previous post, I think it is likely that a very substantial number were up to no good and were probably lucky not to have been shot out of hand by the anti-Taliban forces at the time.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/final_CSRB_6.pdf

it could mean also members or associates of terrorist networks, or persons commiting belligerent acts or supporting hostilities in aid of enemy forces

Isn't that all a bit vague?

Isn't that all a bit vague?

But the way this definition has been interpreted in practice, 98% have been determined to be fighters, members or associates of terrorist organisations

Well, this is one gauntlet which will not go unpicked up. I have been challenged to justify my erstwhile (and extremely unfashionable) defence of Gitmo and am pleased to oblige. I will deal with the posts above in reverse order of cogency, starting with Phan’s.

Firstly, if you look at the US definition of ‘enemy combatant’ (which actually embraces various categories) then it pretty much embraces every single detainee left in Gitmo (I suggest you look at the attached url to see the declassified files of the Combatant Status Review Board, which contain definitions of this term and justifications of its use in relation to each detainee. The document is 93 pages long, but worth looking at ). The mistake here is to assume that an ‘enemy combatant’ must of necessity be a rifle wielding soldier, whereas it could mean also members or associates of terrorist networks, or persons commiting belligerent acts or supporting hostilities in aid of enemy forces. The US administration therefore certainly does not ‘confirm’ that ‘not all were enemy combatants’. Indeed, it has gone out of its way to prove the very opposite by declassifying Combatant Status Review Board documents.

As for your reference to Gitmo being a ‘concentration camp’ I do hope you are not inferring that it bears any reference to the Nazi death camps. In fact, there has not been a single fatality amongst the detainees since Gitmo opened. Indeed, the detainees have access to medical facilities which are probably far superior to any they have experienced before. Its not a Gulag Archipelago yet? Indeed it is not and never will be. I suggest you read or re-read works on the Soviet gulags, where millions were forced to work in slave labour conditions on starvation rations, before making such sweepingly absurd statements (Solzhenitsyn is still a very good source for info on the gulags). By contrast, the Gitmo detainees not only do not have to work, they are provided with at least three meals a day, appropriate to their faith including a choice of menu for many detainees), plus access to leisure and recreational facilities, including reading material and chess games. The Soviet gulags expanded and expanded until they contained millions of people. By contrast, the number of detainees in Gitmo has declined for over 700 to about 500 now and will probably decline still further. I would go as far as to say that, if all of the PoW camps which have ever existed in previous conflicts were miraculously made adjacent to Gitmo, I think it highly probable that the prisoners in those camps would swop places with Gitmo inmates in an instant.

As for the ‘Chinese refugees’, presumably you are referring to the Uighurs, i.e. Islamic separatists, who have been likened to the Chechens in relation to involvement in terrorism. Of course, not all Uighurs are terrorists, but there is a substantial amount of evidence that Islamicist militants within this group have indeed been involved in terrorist acts and have been mentioned in various reports on global terrorism for well over a decade.

As for the statistics produced by Zafar, these derive from a recent study by a New Jersey law professor, Mark Denbeaux, who is representing two of the inmates. It has been extensively quoted on the web and elsewhere as representing an authoritative study of the Gitmo detainees. It is certainly not an unbiased study (Denbeaux is acting for two of the detainees) and is in fact heavily skewed and based on questionable inferences from the department of defense data he uses (derived from the url included below). The same figures (for example, of only 8% of detainees being Al Qaida fighters) are mentioned again and again. This is what I call a Michael Moore statistic, because it ignores all of the other categories within the definition of ‘enemy combatant’. Indeed, even if you take all of Denbeaux’s inferences at face value (i.e. including associates, as well as members, of terrorist networks, then) at the very least 98% of the inmates are within the enemy combatant category (i.e. 8% ‘fighters’; 30% ‘members’ and 60% ‘associates’ of terrorist organizations – these are from his own figures). He admits himself in his study that only 2% have not been identified as having no identifiable link to a named terrorist organization.

As for the fact that most detainees were not captured by US forces on the battlefield, well, before they were sent to Gitmo and since, every single one has been periodically screened by the Combatant Status Review Board and specific reasons given for their continued detention. We should remember that Afghanistan in the days of the Taliban was a magnet for Islamicist fanatics from all over the world and many thousands of them attended terrorist training camps, including probably several hundred from the UK. I doubt very much whether they all miraculously disappeared prior to the invasion, or were killed in its aftermath. Of course, without seeing all of the evidence, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment in individual cases. But as I said in a previous post, I think it is likely that a very substantial number were up to no good and were probably lucky not to have been shot out of hand by the anti-Taliban forces at the time.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/final_CSRB_6.pdf

LordC,

Firstly if we need to review the rational behind the term 'enemy combatant'.

As defined by President Franklin D Roosevelts proclamation number 2561, the definition applied to

all persons who are subjects, citizens, or residents of any Nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such Nation and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States or any territory or possession thereof, through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law or war....


In the run up to the war with Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz was on a mission to try and 'prove' a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. He proposed that Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, be declared as an 'enemy combatant' in the war on terror.

Why ?

This would allow him to be transferred from his penitentiary to a US military installation where he could be presumably tortured into confessing the alleged links.

Wolfowitz's contention was that "U.S. military interrogators--unencumbered by the presence of Yousef's defense lawyer--might be able to get the inmate to confess what he and the lawyer have steadfastly denied: that he was actually an Iraqi intelligence agent dispatched by Saddam to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993 as revenge for the first Persian Gulf War"


This term was coined in order to both circumvent the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war as well as US domestic law. As you know a prisoner of war has to be released at the end of hostilities, whereas an 'enemy combatant' can be held indefinately without charge.

In order to prevent the jurisdiction of the US courts, they were placed in purpose built camps on 'leased' land in a foreign nation, namely cuba.

However the US Supreme Court ruled in July 2004 that civilian courts did have the right to consider challenges to the legality of foreign nationals captured abroad and held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Combatant Status Review Board was setup to give 'official' seal of approval, and many would argue to 'pre-empt' matters coming to the civilian courts as the US govt argues that this mechanism is the most appropriate in the war on 'terrorism'.

The hearings were controversial because the detainees were not allowed access to lawyers. Nor could they hear classified material that might have formed part of the evidence against them.

Both Human Rights groups - and the United Nations - say hearings set up by the military violate prisoners' rights to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body.

If this mechanism was used by say Syria or Iran it would be jumped on by every freedom loving advocate west of the Euphrates!

However if you look at the term 'Enemy Combatant', one has to question whether it has any basis in International Law. Sure, the US administration has refined it to an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces

The fundamental problem with this term is that it neither accords the individual the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.

The neo-cons see the Geneva Conventions and International Law in general as a obstacle in their pursuit of the so called war on terrorism, and somehow believe that they have the God given rights to formulate 'revisions' to long standing international norms.

I would worry about anyone who is happy to see the world as neo-cons appear to do so. They tend to see much that the rest of 'sane' world have problems with. The fact that even now key members still assert a link between Iraq and Al-Queda (whilst ignoring the more obvious and proven link between the US and Bin-Laden).

I think you dismiss too lightly a report by a Law Professor, so I've taken the liberty to provide a link. Certainly, He's 'biased' in the sense that he's representing two of those being tortured in 'Gitmo', but there again I'd argue he's not as insane as those who still assert that there was a link between 9-11 and Iraq!

Perhaps he keeps reiterating the 8% figure because the US administration has for the last several years painted an 'unbiased' picture of the detainee's being the 'worst of the worst' and giving the impression that the majority are 'Al-Quaeda / Taliban'. The fact that this is not true would warrant a continual repitition ?

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf


Besides, now that the UN has actually stated that 'gitmo' should be closed and that torture has been taking place kind of negates the arguments in the broader discussions/debates of whether or not torture has taken place.

Take that report with all the evidence that is in the public domain about other US run 'facilities' and I think its fairly reasonable to assume that Torture is santioned from the upper echelons of the administration.

The US administration has been lying from day one. So much so that it turns out that a despot like Saddam was actually more 'truthful' than this Neo-con run administration. This is mind boggling in itself.

I would take anything coming from the adminstration with a huge bag of salt.

Of course, without seeing all of the evidence, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment in individual cases.

Isn't this the problem though? Because there are no trials, and because the detainees have little access to legal representation, we are just left guessing (unless we choose to blithely believe the same people who told us Iraq was awash with chemical and biological weapons). And once this precedent is set, how many people worldwide are going to be locked up on hearsay, or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Isn't this the problem though? Because there are no trials, and because the detainees have little access to legal representation, we are just left guessing (unless we choose to blithely believe the same people who told us Iraq was awash with chemical and biological weapons). And once this precedent is set, how many people worldwide are going to be locked up on hearsay, or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Teafan,

As Tony Blair would say 'Trust us on this'

Z

If I'd meant death camp, I would have said death camp. It is a concentration camp - no question.

The nine Chinese detainees have been recognised by the administration as not having terrorist connections, but cannot be released due to arguments of jurisdiction and a lack of desire to deal with them post-release.

They are making it up as they go along.

As far as the gulag comparison goes, it's a poor one, but when a country has prison camps scattered around the world (including one on british soil) the analogy is irrestible even if the scales of the two enterprises are separated by several orders of magnitude.

edit - actually only 3 orders of magnitude.

I've read posts comparing these with German troops captured in World War II. For God's sakes, these are hate-filled terrorists with a grudge against Westerners simply because of who we are, and a burning desire to destroy our civilization and culture because we're infidels. Former German and Japanese troops didn't bear grudges against the West once World War II was over, but these terrorists are motivated by religion and not nationalism, and they'll always be highly dangerous right up until the day they're in wooden boxes - and that is a prettty good reason why they don't deserve any rights whatsoever, and to be honest, they should have been gunned down on the spot on the battlefield.

I've read posts comparing these with German troops captured in World War II. For God's sakes, these are hate-filled terrorists with a grudge against Westerners simply because of who we are, and a burning desire to destroy our civilization and culture because we're infidels. Former German and Japanese troops didn't bear grudges against the West once World War II was over, but these terrorists are motivated by religion and not nationalism, and they'll always be highly dangerous right up until the day they're in wooden boxes - and that is a prettty good reason why they don't deserve any rights whatsoever, and to be honest, they should have been gunned down on the spot on the battlefield.

who said propoganda doesn't work ?

Z

who said propoganda doesn't work ?

Z
Some of those who have been released from Gitmo have already gone back to terrorism. Three of them were killed in a shootout in which three Afghan troops were also killed. Will the lily-livered liberals who clamoured for their release also accept responsibility for the deaths of those three Afghan troops killed in that shootout? Somehow, I doubt it.

Some of those who have been released from Gitmo have already gone back to terrorism. Three of them were killed in a shootout in which three Afghan troops were also killed. Will the lily-livered liberals who clamoured for their release also accept responsibility for the deaths of those three Afghan troops killed in that shootout? Somehow, I doubt it.

Its not about lily livered liberals, but to the contrary, comments like

these are hate-filled terrorists with a grudge against Westerners simply because of who we are, and a burning desire to destroy our civilization and culture because we're infidels.


are living proof that the propoganda being disseminated from neo-con central command is having the desired effects.

who said propoganda doesn't work ?

Z

not me. not me.

Apparently criticism or depiction of Guantanamo isn't tolerated by the state either:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4736404.stm

Personally, I'd be livid if some anonymous O'Brien figure arrested me and tried to intimidate me solely for starring in a film about a government-endorsed torture camp. :rant:

Some of those who have been released from Gitmo have already gone back to terrorism. Three of them were killed in a shootout in which three Afghan troops were also killed. Will the lily-livered liberals who clamoured for their release also accept responsibility for the deaths of those three Afghan troops killed in that shootout? Somehow, I doubt it.

firecracker, people aren't necessarily calling for their summary release, but for their fair trial, with evidence. Surely not too much to ask in a democracy?

firecracker, people aren't necessarily calling for their summary release, but for their fair trial, with evidence. Surely not too much to ask in a democracy?but what evidence can the usa offer, certainly that some were found in a battle zone,but were they armed ? then again,if they threw away their weapons they could say they were non combatants.

the ones who could try to prove they were not involved ?where would they get evidence ? i cant see how any one can sort it out now,its gone on for too long,until the taliban are defeated,which,the way things are going will take the usa forever,then i would think the americans will keep them as prisoners, they tend to bury their mistakes.

I don't know enough about Guantanamo to comment in depth but I can't believe the US is getting away with holding people without trial. How can they go around preaching about freedom, democracy and the like when they set examples like that? It seems they always want to be the exception to the rule. They want to impose rules on everyone else yet can get away with blue murder themselves! Is it any wonder they turn people against them?

The fact that they won't let people into the camp to observe stinks, if they had nothing to hide they wouldn't be so secretive. I'm ashamed to be British sometimes - when Tony Blair won't stand up against what is obviously wrong.

There are ways and means of going about things like this and it should be honest and above board... guantanamo is none of these things.

I don't know enough about Guantanamo to comment in depth but I can't believe the US is getting away with holding people without trial. How can they go around preaching about freedom, democracy and the like when they set examples like that? It seems they always want to be the exception to the rule. They want to impose rules on everyone else yet can get away with blue murder themselves! Is it any wonder they turn people against them?

The fact that they won't let people into the camp to observe stinks, if they had nothing to hide they wouldn't be so secretive. I'm ashamed to be British sometimes - when Tony Blair won't stand up against what is obviously wrong.

There are ways and means of going about things like this and it should be honest and above board... guantanamo is none of these things.anne23,perhaps you didn,t know this either, the american troops are exempt from war crimes,i read somewhere that it was written into their articles of war when iraq 1 kicked off

That doesn't suprise me.

I think Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes. :rant:

If I'd meant death camp, I would have said death camp. It is a concentration camp - no question.

The nine Chinese detainees have been recognised by the administration as not having terrorist connections, but cannot be released due to arguments of jurisdiction and a lack of desire to deal with them post-release.

They are making it up as they go along.

As far as the gulag comparison goes, it's a poor one, but when a country has prison camps scattered around the world (including one on british soil) the analogy is irrestible even if the scales of the two enterprises are separated by several orders of magnitude..

Well, you should be aware of the powerful emotive resonance of the term 'concentration camp' in the post-war era. Regardless of its original or literal meaning, it has acquired an indelible association with the Nazi camps and should not be used lightly. The same applies to the term 'gulag'. Your exuberantly fanciful forms of guilt by terminological association do neither you nor your argument any credit.

As for the 'Chinese detainees' you refer to, there are at the last count 22 of these (i.e. Uighurs). The ones you mention have admitted that they intended to fight against China (not the US or its allies). The US cannot return them to China, because they would likely be shot. It has been attempting to find another country which will take them, so far without success. This is hardly an example of indifference to their fate. How different their treatment is to, say, the Ukrainanians who fought against the Soviet Union and when captured by the allies, were returned to the tender mercies of Stalin and promptly executed. The other Uighurs have been classified as 'enemy combatants'

but what evidence can the usa offer, certainly that some were found in a battle zone,but were they armed ? then again,if they threw away their weapons they could say they were non combatants.

the ones who could try to prove they were not involved ?where would they get evidence ? i cant see how any one can sort it out now,its gone on for too long,until the taliban are defeated,which,the way things are going will take the usa forever,then i would think the americans will keep them as prisoners, they tend to bury their mistakes.
.......... Sorry Depoix - This post was aimed at someone else. Must get the hang of this new board format.

I don't know enough about Guantanamo to comment in depth but I can't believe the US is getting away with holding people without trial. How can they go around preaching about freedom, democracy and the like when they set examples like that? It seems they always want to be the exception to the rule. They want to impose rules on everyone else yet can get away with blue murder themselves! Is it any wonder they turn people against them?

The fact that they won't let people into the camp to observe stinks, if they had nothing to hide they wouldn't be so secretive. I'm ashamed to be British sometimes - when Tony Blair won't stand up against what is obviously wrong.

There are ways and means of going about things like this and it should be honest and above board... guantanamo is none of these things.
Are you trying to tell us that hardened terrorist nutjobs with murder in their hearts and anti-Western Jihad in their minds should be released? They are of the mindset of those who decapitated Ken Bigley, and murdered thousands of innocents in atrocities like 911, Bali - twice, Beslan, Luxor, Madrid, London and many others, particularly against Israel. These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Nothing we could ever do for them could make them like us, and it is naive to believe otherwise. And lets face it - those who go into a battle zone do so to kill and at the same time risk being killed or captured. Their presence in the battle zone and their determination to get there is evidence enough.[/

Are you trying to tell us that hardened terrorist nutjobs with murder in their hearts and anti-Western Jihad in their minds should be released? They are of the mindset of those who decapitated Ken Bigley, and murdered thousands of innocents in atrocities like 911, Bali - twice, Beslan, Luxor, Madrid, London and many others, particularly against Israel. These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Nothing we could ever do for them could make them like us, and it is naive to believe otherwise. And lets face it - those who go into a battle zone do so to kill and at the same time risk being killed or captured. Their presence in the battle zone and their determination to get there is evidence enough.absolutely not, i would have thought that there would have been enough of a build up of front line troops to warn even the dumbest fool on earth that a war was about to break out and that any one who didnt want a part in it should get the hell out of the way.

i was trying to point out that it is nigh on impossible for the u s a to release them now without losing face, how could the u s a turn round now after all this time and use the excuses i posted for them? they are stuck with them because of their own arrogance,they thought the war would be a walk over,sadly they are very wrong

That doesn't suprise me.

I think Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes. :rant:
Do you think Saddam Hussein should be tried for crimes against humanity? Personally I think he should have been saved the trouble of a trial by having a bullet drilled through his head. And what about the mad mullahs of Iran? Should they be tried for hanging 16-year-old girls for having sharp tongues, or beating a young boy to death for breaking his Ramadan fast? Maybe Ahmadinejad of Iran should be punished for threatening to nuke Israel and create another holocaust, and subjugating his people through the Basij thugs.

absolutely not, i would have thought that there would have been enough of a build up of front line troops to warn even the dumbest fool on earth that a war was about to break out and that any one who didnt want a part in it should get the hell out of the way.

i was trying to point out that it is nigh on impossible for the u s a to release them now without losing face, how could the u s a turn round now after all this time and use the excuses i posted for them? they are stuck with them because of their own arrogance,they thought the war would be a walk over,sadly they are very wrong
Sorry Depoix. That response had been aimed at Anne23, but I had hit the wrong button and believed I had been replying to her.

Are you trying to tell us that hardened terrorist nutjobs with murder in their hearts and anti-Western Jihad in their minds should be released? They are of the mindset of those who decapitated Ken Bigley, and murdered thousands of innocents in atrocities like 911, Bali - twice, Beslan, Luxor, Madrid, London and many others, particularly against Israel. These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Nothing we could ever do for them could make them like us, and it is naive to believe otherwise. And lets face it - those who go into a battle zone do so to kill and at the same time risk being killed or captured. Their presence in the battle zone and their determination to get there is evidence enough.[/
How the hell do you know what their mindset is? These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Really? Did you grow up in thir neighborhood?
Try them or let them go.

Sorry Depoix. That response had been aimed at Anne23, but I had hit the wrong button and believed I had been replying to her.no problem mate

How the hell do you know what their mindset is? These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Really? Did you grow up in thir neighborhood?
Try them or let them go.as i posted earlier,how can they try them, they have no defence to put foreward so it would not be a fair trial in the eyes of the world,and that is what america needs right now,a show trial to boost its ego,they have worked themselves into a very tight corner, they have to justify why they keep them, to every ones satisfaction

How the hell do you know what their mindset is? These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Really? Did you grow up in thir neighborhood?
Try them or let them go.
Some of them have already been let go, and they've returned to terrorism. Several have been recaptured on the battlefield, others killed there - after being given a second chance to kill thanks to the bleeding heart civil libertarians. To be honest, I don't believe we should be in the business of giving them a second chance to kill, and releasing them will do just that.

Are you trying to tell us that hardened terrorist nutjobs with murder in their hearts and anti-Western Jihad in their minds should be released?
[/

er no.. I don't think I said anything like that. I think they should be kept in normal jails on american soil and have the right to a trial in a reasonable time period and the UN and Amnesty should have access to the prisoners. Its only fair.

Innocent until proven guilty like every other human being on the planet.. this is not a special case.

Some of them have already been let go, and they've returned to terrorism. Several have been recaptured on the battlefield, others killed there - after being given a second chance to kill thanks to the bleeding heart civil libertarians. To be honest, I don't believe we should be in the business of giving them a second chance to kill, and releasing them will do just that.

I note that you have stated this in a previous post and I cannot find a response to this specific point from either Zafar or Halibut. Why is this:confused:

Do you think Saddam Hussein should be tried for crimes against humanity? Personally I think he should have been saved the trouble of a trial by having a bullet drilled through his head. And what about the mad mullahs of Iran? Should they be tried for hanging 16-year-old girls for having sharp tongues, or beating a young boy to death for breaking his Ramadan fast? Maybe Ahmadinejad of Iran should be punished for threatening to nuke Israel and create another holocaust, and subjugating his people through the Basij thugs.

I think everyone deserves a fair trial. You can't pick and choose who you apply laws to.

er no.. I don't think I said anything like that. I think they should be kept in normal jails on american soil and have the right to a trial in a reasonable time period and the UN and Amnesty should have access to the prisoners. Its only fair.

Innocent until proven guilty like every other human being on the planet.. this is not a special case.

Hi Anne,

A normal jail on American soil? I'm personally no fan of Gitmo, but believe me, the prisoners are safer where they are.

They wouldn't live out the day in a real American prison. Think the Marines or the US army are cruel and inhumane? I don't even want to THINK about what the Crips or Nortenos would do if they got their depraved hands on them.

And please, don't be ashamed to be British! You Brits have given the world alot. Don't be ashamed.

:) Sierra

Well, I can't comment on US prisons... but somewhere where they wouldn't be able to put bags on peoples heads etc and subject them to what amounts to torture would be nice. Its insane what they're getting away with.

I think everyone deserves a fair trial. You can't pick and choose who you apply laws to.
This is the law of survival, and I care a hell of a lot more about OUR safety and survival before their human rights. And I'll ask you one question. Do THEY care about OUR human rights? Don't think so, somehow.

So you'd understand it if they locked you up without trial in a cage for 4 years, even though you were completely innocent.

Well, you're a more tolerant person than I.

How the hell do you know what their mindset is? These sadists are taught to hate us from birth. Really? Did you grow up in thir neighborhood?
Try them or let them go.
You obviously haven't seen pictures of two-year-old Palestinian kids, wearing mock bomb belts around their waists, holding Kalashnikovs and sporting green bandanas wrapped around their foreheads with the words "Allahu Akbar" written in Arabic, or six-year-olds in madrassas memorising the Koran and those verses related to waging war against infidels, watched over by religious scholars firing them up with hatred. That is how many a Jihadist, including the perpetrators of Bali, 911, Beslan, Madrid, London etc, started out on the road to murder.

You obviously haven't seen pictures of two-year-old Palestinian kids, wearing mock bomb belts around their waists, holding Kalashnikovs and sporting green bandanas wrapped around their foreheads with the words "Allahu Akbar" written in Arabic, or six-year-olds in madrassas memorising the Koran and those verses related to waging war against infidels, watched over by religious scholars firing them up with hatred. That is how many a Jihadist, including the perpetrators of Bali, 911, Beslan, Madrid, London etc, started out on the road to murder.
Yes I have. I'm just less gullible than you are.
To generalise these images across a whole range of terrorist incidents is grossly simplistic and perverse. At least one of the London bombers was widely reported as having been a thoroughly "regular" guy, who worked in a school, loved cricket and (initially) had no great interest in his faith - I'm quite confident that if you take the time to look you'll find as many different backgrounds and stories behind these bombings as there are bombers.

Yes I have. I'm just less gullible than you are.
To generalise these images across a whole range of terrorist incidents is grossly simplistic and perverse. At least one of the London bombers was widely reported as having been a thoroughly "regular" guy, who worked in a school, loved cricket and (initially) had no great interest in his faith - I'm quite confident that if you take the time to look you'll find as many different backgrounds and stories behind these bombings as there are bombers.
Just because it has been widely reported that one of those terrorists was a "regular guy" doesn't necessarily make it so. They always say he was a nice guy for who butter wouldn't melt in the mouth without fail in a brazen attempt to pass the buck and pin the blame on ourselves. If we've heard this once, we've heard it a thousand times, and it just doesn't wash anymore.

These 'people' held in Guantanamo weren't on package holidays when they were captured. The less-worldly contributors to this forum seem to assume that the US military and CIA are idiots – far from it, I’ve worked with them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if they’ve taken people prisoner, it’s because they KNOW they’ve been up to no good.

The terrorists aren't residents of a nation that was at war with the West and has declared peace. Al Qaeda is a remarkably well-established network which has fully capitalised on the principles of asymmetric warfare. It can be likened to a headless snake in that there is no vulnerable centre of gravity to be taken out, so it will be very, very difficult to eradicate. As a result, its loathing and hatred of the west, which it despises for many reasons including US foreign policy (mainly Israel) and resents for the fact that the oil-rich Arab States are dependant on western expertise to extract their oil, will continue. Prisoners of war – which the animals in Guantanamo are not – are released when the war is over and they are no longer a threat to their captors. Even if they were POWs, would you release them while the war was still on? Madness!

They are obsessed, fanatical murderers who will return to their home communities to help plot further terrorist activity against innocent western civilians. The same probably applies to the British detainees who were sadly released after interference by Blair. They chose to be sworn enemies of our country and everything that our Western democracy represents, yet the bleeding heart liberals think they should be released to have another go.

IF the do-gooders succeed in getting the Guantanamo inmates released, and WHEN they commit further atrocity, perhaps those do-gooders will personally visit the families of the victims and explain why they still think these terrorists should be free to roam.

These 'people' held in Guantanamo weren't on package holidays when they were captured. The less-worldly contributors to this forum seem to assume that the US military and CIA are idiots – far from it, I’ve worked with them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if they’ve taken people prisoner, it’s because they KNOW they’ve been up to no good.

The terrorists aren't residents of a nation that was at war with the West and has declared peace. Al Qaeda is a remarkably well-established network which has fully capitalised on the principles of asymmetric warfare. It can be likened to a headless snake in that there is no vulnerable centre of gravity to be taken out, so it will be very, very difficult to eradicate. As a result, its loathing and hatred of the west, which it despises for many reasons including US foreign policy (mainly Israel) and resents for the fact that the oil-rich Arab States are dependant on western expertise to extract their oil, will continue. Prisoners of war – which the animals in Guantanamo are not – are released when the war is over and they are no longer a threat to their captors. Even if they were POWs, would you release them while the war was still on? Madness!

They are obsessed, fanatical murderers who will return to their home communities to help plot further terrorist activity against innocent western civilians. The same probably applies to the British detainees who were sadly released after interference by Blair. They chose to be sworn enemies of our country and everything that our Western democracy represents, yet the bleeding heart liberals think they should be released to have another go.

IF the do-gooders succeed in getting the Guantanamo inmates released, and WHEN they commit further atrocity, perhaps those do-gooders will personally visit the families of the victims and explain why they still think these terrorists should be free to roam.
Bartfast, you're around 99% right, but there's one or two things to add. They hate us because we're not them. We don't have the same values as they do, and that is an affront to them. They hate our man-made laws. They hate the fact that women in the West have equal rights (they think women are mentally deficient), and aren't forced to cover up in burkas. They think music is of the devil and pictures of living things are graven images. To them, entertainment and enjoyment is a sin. They will invent any number of reasons to kill us. If Israel didn't exist, something else would be used as a 'grievance'. They are stuck in the 7th century and think we should go back to that depressing dark age, and if we refuse, we should be killed. Their position is non-negotiable, and it is foolish to think otherwise.

Bartfast, you're around 99% right, but there's one or two things to add. They hate us because we're not them. We don't have the same values as they do, and that is an affront to them. They hate our man-made laws. They hate the fact that women in the West have equal rights (they think women are mentally deficient), and aren't forced to cover up in burkas. They think music is of the devil and pictures of living things are graven images. To them, entertainment and enjoyment is a sin. They will invent any number of reasons to kill us. If Israel didn't exist, something else would be used as a 'grievance'. They are stuck in the 7th century and think we should go back to that depressing dark age, and if we refuse, we should be killed. Their position is non-negotiable, and it is foolish to think otherwise.
Err, who exactly are the "they" and "them" you refer to firecracker? You seem to be pretty annoyed by somebody...do you mean Muslims generally?Every nation east of Turkey? Palestinians particularly? Al-Quaeda?
Please clarify.

Firecracker, I can't disagree with a single word you just said, you're spot on (the only reason mine was a little 'toned down' from that is that the mods seem to ban me every time I say something they don't agree with!).

Islam is a relatively immature religion, and some (of course not all) of its followers are still a thousand years behind Christianity in their literal application of abstract verses as they try to interpret the Koran. It's just a book, written by people with pens on paper, and like every written work there's ever been it can be interpreted in different ways.

Christianity was a naive and barbaric religion only 500 years ago - less even. I just hope that the extreme Muslims don't take another 500 years to learn some sense. Trouble is, although the extremists are a minority, they aren't a small enough minority even in western society, and their failure to integrate is a result of the primitive doctrines in the Koran that are spoon-fed to them by the Imams.

firecracker, for all our benefits, could you perhaps give us a case study of one of the people held at Guantanamo, to help us make our minds up.

Doubtless they'll all be innocent travellers who booked a pilgrimage with Thomas Cook's and were quietly taking in the scenery around Tora Bora, probably knocking up a few watercolours of the nicer valleys, when some nasty Americans came up and chained them up.

Or, get real, they wouldn't be there if they weren't terrorists. Terrorists have no consideration for others' rights. They deliberately target the weak and innocent of their opponent's nation in order to generate terror.

Why would anybody want to defend these vermin? They are sub-human and should be granted no human rights.

People say they're being tortured? They may be subjected to advanced interrogation techniques, but is this torture? More rubbish from the liberal do-gooders.

The Taliban had torture sorted. One of their specialities was known as 'bagging'. When they caught Spetnaz troops they would be tied up with their arms wrapped close round their neck, their skin would be cut around the waistline, and they would be skinned upwards so that the chest cover formed a ‘bag’ which would be tied over the top of the head. That way the victim would die of asphyxiation while bleeding to death in total agony.

And the do-gooders call a bit of sleep deprivation torture?

Perhaps we should send captured terrorists on nice safari holidays like the failed programme with delinquent teenagers.

Err, who exactly are the "they" and "them" you refer to firecracker? You seem to be pretty annoyed by somebody...do you mean Muslims generally?Every nation east of Turkey? Palestinians particularly? Al-Quaeda?
Please clarify.
I'd like you to clarify a few things, like:

What did those New York office workers do to deserve to die like they did?

What did those passengers on those four planes do wrong to deserve their fate?

Or those revellers in Bali and tourists in Luxor?

Or those schoolchildren in Beslan?

Or those commuters in London and Madrid?

Doubtless they'll all be innocent travellers who booked a pilgrimage with Thomas Cook's and were quietly taking in the scenery around Tora Bora, probably knocking up a few watercolours of the nicer valleys, when some nasty Americans came up and chained them up.

Or, get real, they wouldn't be there if they weren't terrorists. Terrorists have no consideration for others' rights. They deliberately target the weak and innocent of their opponent's nation in order to generate terror.

Why would anybody want to defend these vermin? They are sub-human and should be granted no human rights.

People say they're being tortured? They may be subjected to advanced interrogation techniques, but is this torture? More rubbish from the liberal do-gooders.

The Taliban had torture sorted. One of their specialities was known as 'bagging'. When they caught Spetnaz troops they would be tied up with their arms wrapped close round their neck, their skin would be cut around the waistline, and they would be skinned upwards so that the chest cover formed a ‘bag’ which would be tied over the top of the head. That way the victim would die of asphyxiation while bleeding to death in total agony.

And the do-gooders call a bit of sleep deprivation torture?

Perhaps we should send captured terrorists on nice safari holidays like the failed programme with delinquent teenagers.

I notice that you've managed to designate people who you claim were on a battlefield as "terrorists". I think you need to sort your definitions out.

I'd like you to clarify a few things, like:

What did those New York office workers do to deserve to die like they did?

What did those passengers on those four planes do wrong to deserve their fate?

Or those revellers in Bali and tourists in Luxor?

Or those schoolchildren in Beslan?

Or those commuters in London and Madrid?

Nothing. What is the link between these terrorist attacks and any named individual being held at Gitmo?

Locking "possible" terrorists up indefinitely does nothing to save us from more 9/11 scenarios. It just further polarises peoples views against the west and thus creates more terrorists.

Do you think Saddam Hussein should be tried for crimes against humanity? Personally I think he should have been saved the trouble of a trial by having a bullet drilled through his head. And what about the mad mullahs of Iran? Should they be tried for hanging 16-year-old girls for having sharp tongues, or beating a young boy to death for breaking his Ramadan fast? Maybe Ahmadinejad of Iran should be punished for threatening to nuke Israel and create another holocaust, and subjugating his people through the Basij thugs.


I dont know where you get your so called information from, but its very reminiscent of the view that Mongols use to eat babies !

I bet you were one of those that believed the Iraqi's were throwing babies out of incubators during the invasion of Iraq :loopy:

Z

There was another report out from a human rights group how the US has 'altered' its interrogation procedures in this so called war on terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight

Last nights program had a section on deaths within US custody.
The interesting part is how Donald Rumsfeld gave a wink and nod to torture.

Z

Bartfast, I've gone through this thread and nowhere is anyone suggesting the detainees be released from Guantanamo. However, what all right-minded people are asking is that they be given a trial where their crimes can be held up to the light of day.

Zafar, apropos of your response to Firecracker in relation to the alleged unspeakable cruelty of the Iranian regime, Iran executed 8 children in 2005 alone according to Amnesty International. On various websites, it is possible to find pictures of the executed dangling from cranes, as many of these executions are carried out in public. With regard to the barbarity of the current Iranian regime, no hyperbole is required.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE130052006

Zafar, apropos of your response to Firecracker in relation to the alleged unspeakable cruelty of the Iranian regime, Iran executed 8 children in 2005 alone according to Amnesty International. On various websites, it is possible to find pictures of the executed dangling from cranes, as many of these executions are carried out in public. With regard to the barbarity of the current Iranian regime, no hyperbole is required.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGMDE130052006

LordC,

This is the fundamental problem with this whole situation, we have two sets of criminals accusing the other of being a 'bigger' criminal.

I dont suppose you read of the reports on the very same site vis a vi the US ?
Certainly not any less barbaric.

Z

Locking "possible" terrorists up indefinitely does nothing to save us from more 9/11 scenarios. It just further polarises peoples views against the west and thus creates more terrorists.
It might not save us from more 911 scenarios, but it leaves fewer people out there who would carry out 911s, Balis, Beslans etc. And at the end of the day, our way of life and culture alone provides them with every excuse they need in their tiny minds to murder us at will. They are apocalyptic terrorists who believe that if they murder us and die at the same time, they will get their virgins in Paradise. Thats why they don't fear death and openly embrace it, and those who behave in this way are uniquely dangerous.

LordC,

This is the fundamental problem with this whole situation, we have two sets of criminals accusing the other of being a 'bigger' criminal.

I dont suppose you read of the reports on the very same site vis a vi the US ?
Certainly not any less barbaric.

Z

I must have missed something, as I have no recollection of reading about, or viewing the sight of, young children and young women dangling from cranes (or being stoned to death) in the USA. By seeking to introduce a crude moral parallelism between the behaviour of the US and that of the current iranian regime you do your arguments no credit at all.

Nothing. What is the link between these terrorist attacks and any named individual being held at Gitmo?
They have exactly the same mindset as those who carried out 911, Beslan etc.

They also belong to, support, and fight for organisations of the type who carry out 911, Beslan and many other atrocities.

Doubtless they'll all be innocent travellers who booked a pilgrimage with Thomas Cook's and were quietly taking in the scenery around Tora Bora, probably knocking up a few watercolours of the nicer valleys, when some nasty Americans came up and chained them up.

Or, get real, they wouldn't be there if they weren't terrorists. Terrorists have no consideration for others' rights. They deliberately target the weak and innocent of their opponent's nation in order to generate terror.


The point is that neither you nor I have seen any evidence of what these people have supposedly done. There is no way of knowing if they are genuine terrorists or completely innocent. That's why they should be put on trial.

The thing that infuriates me about Guantanamo is that we're expected to take a government on their word only. It basically boils down to:

"We can't give you any proof that these people are terrorists, and we won't put them on trial, so you'll just have to believe us, okay?"

I don't take governments or authority figures on their word only. The reason that justice systems exist is so that we don't have to take them on their word only. To do so would be naive, and would leave us wide open to abuses of power.

Even if it was a government who I liked and trusted, I still wouldn't condone them throwing people into a modern-day oubliette. As it's a government that lied through their teeth about WMDs to justify a war, I certainly won't give them the benefit of the doubt.

Don't you find it depressing that in the last five years, torture has suddenly become fair game again? :(

Bartfast, I've gone through this thread and nowhere is anyone suggesting the detainees be released from Guantanamo. However, what all right-minded people are asking is that they be given a trial where their crimes can be held up to the light of day.

Thank you Max. I find it very frustrating that if one stands up for the principles of justice and due legal process, the accusation comes flying back that this is the same thing as wanting to send terrorists on luxury holidays. :huh: :loopy:

They have exactly the same mindset as those who carried out 911, Beslan etc.

They also belong to, support, and fight for organisations of the type who carry out 911, Beslan and many other atrocities.

Who are "they"? Come on, give us a name.

I must have missed something, as I have no recollection of reading about, or viewing the sight of, young children and young women dangling from cranes (or being stoned to death) in the USA. By seeking to introduce a crude moral parallelism between the behaviour of the US and that of the current iranian regime you do your arguments no credit at all.

Execution is execution.

I certainly dont believe you're unaware of the fact that BOTH the US and Iran practice capital punishment.

Therefore you're simply arguing on the lines of cultural differences in what is an acceptable way of 'executing' an individual. I'd argue that its hypocritical to practice capital punishment behind the confines of four walls and call it 'civilised' whilst condemning those who show it openly.

As for your comments about 'young children', its ironic that 'young children' have been locked up in 'Gitmo' and in general we dont seem to have problems sending 'young children' out to war and killing on our behalf!

Z

I must have missed something, as I have no recollection of reading about, or viewing the sight of, young children and young women dangling from cranes (or being stoned to death) in the USA. By seeking to introduce a crude moral parallelism between the behaviour of the US and that of the current iranian regime you do your arguments no credit at all.

Execution is execution.

I certainly dont believe you're unaware of the fact that BOTH the US and Iran practice capital punishment.

Therefore you're simply arguing on the lines of cultural differences in what is an acceptable way of 'executing' an individual. I'd argue that its hypocritical to practice capital punishment behind the confines of four walls and call it 'civilised' whilst condemning those who show it openly.

As for your comments about 'young children', its ironic that 'young children' have been locked up in 'Gitmo' and in general we dont seem to have problems sending 'young children' out to war and killing on our behalf!

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-eng

The USA carried out 19 executions – more than any other country.

The US Supreme court only banned the practice back in March 2005, so evidently you have missed something.

Z



Z

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight

Last nights program had a section on deaths within US custody.
The interesting part is how Donald Rumsfeld gave a wink and nod to torture.

Z


I saw that. I'm still left wondering why the ribcage of one detainee turned up in washington, yet his larynx was found in Germany. The fragment of skull with the bullet damage was never found.....

It might not save us from more 911 scenarios, but it leaves fewer people out there who would carry out 911s, Balis, Beslans etc.

On the contrary, the more people we lock up indefinitely without right to trial, the more extremists and terrorists we create. People don't trot off to terrorist camps cos they want a holiday. They go because they believe strongly that their people and their countries are being treated in an injust way by countries like the US and the UK which can't practise what they preach.

Spot on Anne the foreign policy and hypocrisy of the US and UK government is the issue!

On the contrary, the more people we lock up indefinitely without right to trial, the more extremists and terrorists we create. People don't trot off to terrorist camps cos they want a holiday. They go because they believe strongly that their people and their countries are being treated in an injust way by countries like the US and the UK which can't practise what they preach.


As was shown during the troubles in Northern Ireland when we practiced 'internment'. All it did was to swell the ranks of the IRA!

Its not even a question of not practising what we preach, its more that our chief ally and self declared leader of the 'free' world tends to practice the very same acts that they condemn others for.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

close it down & bring the inmates over to england no doubt they would be well looked after

close it down & bring the inmates over to england no doubt they would be well looked after
yep, byTeaFan and Anne23. :hihi:

yep, byTeaFan and Anne23. :hihi:

Or tried in a proper court, perhaps. Admit it, the reason you can't give us any specifics about the people in Gitmo, not even a name, is that you have no idea, isn't that right?

You're just making this up as you go along.

As was shown during the troubles in Northern Ireland when we practiced 'internment'. All it did was to swell the ranks of the IRA!

Its not even a question of not practising what we preach, its more that our chief ally and self declared leader of the 'free' world tends to practice the very same acts that they condemn others for.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Excuse me Zafar,

Did it ever occur to you that those involved with this mess are privy to information that the rest of us mere mortals are not? And that none of us can truly make an informed decision about this because we don't have all the facts?

I swear, I am leaving this thread, because if I have to read another of your anti-semitic, anti-US posts I will claw my own eyes out.

Sir. You know NOTHING about either America or Americans. Except what you don't like.

And the rest of you who want all the "innocent freedom fighters" at Guantanamo Bay released? Sure thing. Each of you can take one. YOU will be personally responsible for them for the first five years of their freedom. What? That's not fair? Sure it is. As we say here where all the pots are black, put up or shut up.

:rant: Sierra

Well, I guess I'm wrong. People attending terrorist training camps aren't necessarily terrorists. People who support Bin Laden's mini crusade to kill anything and anybody Western are probably nice chaps. Perhaps I've just been a little too intolerant. I think not!

All of the do-gooders are sat fat, dumb and happy in their armchairs reading the Guardian, deciding that enemies of our state, and people who kill our citizens and military personnel should be given fair trials. I wouldn't give them oxygen, and if that means a small proportion of them might be innocent but we take care of the rest, I'd call that an acceptable error rate. Especially when considering the fine men I’ve worked with who are now dead.

If the lefty do-gooders had actually spent time in Afghanistan or Iraq in uniform, miles from families, avoiding fire and seeing their friends blown up or shot, they might have a different view. It’s not nice there, and the people we’re up against are the most profoundly fanatical, irrational idiots we’ve ever come across. Luckily they’re mostly dim witted, but they compensate for that to a large extent with hatred and religious fervour.

Open court trial of these people will probably end up with them being released for lack of evidence - because the courts work in the criminal's favour. Just because we didn’t catch them all in the act of shooting somebody or planting a bomb doesn't mean that's not what they were doing or training to do - we KNOW that to be the case, but in court the do-gooders will just release them.

The Bush administration is doing the best thing it can - delay the whole issue as long as possible so that these sub-human murdering nutters are kept in a safe place where they can kill nobody. The mistake that was made when the campaign calmed down was not just to interrogate them and shoot the lot – there would be plenty of dead valleys the bodies could have been air dropped into.

Yeh, shut the place down and bring it over here...then put the guardian reading libs in with the criminals that they so strongly argue have rights and leave em to rot....nuff said, end of argument:thumbsup:

Yeh, shut the place down and bring it over here...then put the guardian reading libs in with the criminals that they so strongly argue have rights and leave em to rot....nuff said, end of argument:thumbsup:

Wow, with words like that you must get asked to debate every issue.

Wilf

Wow, with words like that you must get asked to debate every issue.

Wilf

Christ, its 2am, do ya think I'm gonna get the oxford english dictionary out?

I dunno, if you seriously felt there was a point to make and you were passionate, you might make a bit of effort.

Wilf

Well, I guess I'm wrong. People attending terrorist training camps aren't necessarily terrorists. People who support Bin Laden's mini crusade to kill anything and anybody Western are probably nice chaps. Perhaps I've just been a little too intolerant. I think not!

All of the do-gooders are sat fat, dumb and happy in their armchairs reading the Guardian, deciding that enemies of our state, and people who kill our citizens and military personnel should be given fair trials. I wouldn't give them oxygen, and if that means a small proportion of them might be innocent but we take care of the rest, I'd call that an acceptable error rate. Especially when considering the fine men I’ve worked with who are now dead.

If the lefty do-gooders had actually spent time in Afghanistan or Iraq in uniform, miles from families, avoiding fire and seeing their friends blown up or shot, they might have a different view. It’s not nice there, and the people we’re up against are the most profoundly fanatical, irrational idiots we’ve ever come across. Luckily they’re mostly dim witted, but they compensate for that to a large extent with hatred and religious fervour.

Open court trial of these people will probably end up with them being released for lack of evidence - because the courts work in the criminal's favour. Just because we didn’t catch them all in the act of shooting somebody or planting a bomb doesn't mean that's not what they were doing or training to do - we KNOW that to be the case, but in court the do-gooders will just release them.

The Bush administration is doing the best thing it can - delay the whole issue as long as possible so that these sub-human murdering nutters are kept in a safe place where they can kill nobody. The mistake that was made when the campaign calmed down was not just to interrogate them and shoot the lot – there would be plenty of dead valleys the bodies could have been air dropped into.

The problem is Bartfarst, that you are asking us to just take the word of the politicians who lie to us every day. The point of a proper trial is to decide what it is possible to KNOW, and what is just conjecture. If I stashed a kilo of coke in your house, then would we KNOW that you are a drug dealer? I mean, who but a drug dealer would have a kilo of coke in their house? Would you waive your right to a proper investigation, refuse all legal representation, insist that the police don't dust it to show your fingerprints aren't on it? Of course not. The problem is, in the world you want, evidence wouldn't matter. Someone could knock on all your neighbours' doors and spread slander and gossip about you, and that would be enough - because if they, like you, no longer see the point of evidence, then they'll believe what they want about you. Except that they'll do away with "believe", and say that they KNOW these things about you.

The reason people get het up about Gitmo is not that they think that none of the people there could possibly be horrible, violent people, but because if we let this one through, then it's the beginning of the end of any kind of democratic society. How do you think regimes like the Taliban, or North Korea, get away with imprisoning and killing their opponents on a daily basis? Through the simple expedient of labelling them enemies of the people, enemies of the state, subversives, plotters, possibly even "terrorists". And the people go along with it because they believe whatever their leaders tell them - they, like you, have dispensed with unfashionable, "liberal" notions of evidence, innocent until proven guilty, and the like.

Nobody disputes that there are some nasty people around, but it's easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater and sleep-walk into a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship. Given that most people won't even consider giving up their patio heaters or their cars to address the far more serious and worrying issue of climate change (although that's presumably too "liberal" a cause for them to worry about), I find it weird that they're prepared to sell their freedoms and rights in the "war on terror".

Excuse me Zafar,

And the rest of you who want all the "innocent freedom fighters" at Guantanamo Bay released? Sure thing. Each of you can take one. YOU will be personally responsible for them for the first five years of their freedom. What? That's not fair? Sure it is. As we say here where all the pots are black, put up or shut up.

:rant: Sierra

As has been pointed out more than once on this thread, NO-ONE has said they want anyone released, except without a fair trial. If people need me to, I can submit this post 25 times, just so that it's clear.

Excuse me Zafar,
I swear, I am leaving this thread, because if I have to read another of your anti-semitic, anti-US posts I will claw my own eyes out.

Anti-Semitic?

Must be in another thread.

Excuse me Zafar,

Did it ever occur to you that those involved with this mess are privy to information that the rest of us mere mortals are not? And that none of us can truly make an informed decision about this because we don't have all the facts?

I swear, I am leaving this thread, because if I have to read another of your anti-semitic, anti-US posts I will claw my own eyes out.

Sir. You know NOTHING about either America or Americans. Except what you don't like.

And the rest of you who want all the "innocent freedom fighters" at Guantanamo Bay released? Sure thing. Each of you can take one. YOU will be personally responsible for them for the first five years of their freedom. What? That's not fair? Sure it is. As we say here where all the pots are black, put up or shut up.

:rant: Sierra

Yup we mere mortals were given access to some of that information vis a vi the dodgy dossier. Information based on a student's thesis that was 10 years out of date.

Perhaps you like to be spoonfed the 'truth' by Rumsfeld & Co, I on the other hand will not accept at face value nonsense even if its espoused by the Govt of the United States, or our own govt for that matter.

As for making anti-semetic comments, well thats twice now that someone has jumped up and down and made that claim.

I'll make this as simple as possible, criticising Israeli actions does not equal anti-semitism! Try and get your head around that and come to terms with it.
Just like criticising the UK or US govt's doesn't make me a communist, unless ofcourse you're still stuck in the McCarthy years!

You may hold Israel as a sacred cow, I certainly dont.

Rather than getting emotional, point out where you believe I'm wrong about either Israel or the US, instead of the usual reaction of calling people 'anti-semitic'.

You seem to have overlooked the rather SIMPLE fact that there are other semites in the Middle East, apart from those that live within the 'walls' of Israel!

Z

The Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don't know

We don't know.

Its all clear as mud now, why we went to war with Iraq!

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

It's actually quite clear to me what he means, and it makes perfect sense.

this sort of thing

"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty."

Worries me more.

this sort of thing

Originally Posted by Rumsfeld
"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty."


Worries me more.

You would have thought the blueprint for post-invasion Iraq would be longer.

Did it ever occur to you that those involved with this mess are privy to information that the rest of us mere mortals are not? And that none of us can truly make an informed decision about this because we don't have all the facts?


You might have your government on a pedestal and want to swallow every bit of rubbish that comes out of their mouths but I consider Bush, Blair Rumsfeld et al to be just as human as the rest of us and just as prone to make mistakes (or complete f-up's in this case) and quite likely to mess with the truth slightly to try to keep us on board.

They are accountable to us, which means they have to own up to what they're doing on our behalf. If they had nothing to hide they wouldn't be so secretive. If they were doing things by the book they would be listening to the UN, human rights organisations and the committee of MPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4741780.stm) who are calling for it to be closed.

As has been pointed out more than once on this thread, NO-ONE has said they want anyone released, except without a fair trial. If people need me to, I can submit this post 25 times, just so that it's clear.

Clear? Crystal, thanks. Who will determine what constitutes a fair trial? Ya'll have made it abundantly clear that you don't trust us to do anything. Somehow I think you'd be unhappy with the results of ANY trial unless all of these people were completely exonerated and set free.

You might have your government on a pedestal and want to swallow every bit of rubbish that comes out of their mouths but I consider Bush, Blair Rumsfeld et al to be just as human as the rest of us and just as prone to make mistakes (or complete f-up's in this case) and quite likely to mess with the truth slightly to try to keep us on board.

They are accountable to us, which means they have to own up to what they're doing on our behalf. If they had nothing to hide they wouldn't be so secretive. If they were doing things by the book they would be listening to the UN, human rights organisations and the committee of MPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4741780.stm) who are calling for it to be closed.

Anne,

I quite agree, they're supposed to be accountable to us. But do you honestly believe that any of us will ever get the truth? And if Bush and Blair make mistakes and fudge with the truth, why would the UN or indeed ANY other organization be any different? Think the UN, or the committee of MP's does EVERYTHING above board and that you see what's really going on? You see what they want you to see, my dear. They don't reveal any more than they're absolutely forced to. And if I were in their shoes? I'd probably do the same.

And I really don't have my government on a pedestal. I'd be satisfied if the lying, cheating, double talking, wasteful so and so's could tell me where at least some of my tax dollars go. Not all, just some. I'm not greedy.

And when is the UN ever NOT calling for something. Perhaps I'm more sick of these thieves and liars than the rest of you, since they whoop it up in my country and not yours. I can't tell you how many of them or their family members regularly commit crimes ranging from scofflaw traffic and parking tickets to rape and murder...then claim diplomatic immunity. Notice where they set up shop? Somalia? Bangladesh? Calcutta? Ohellno. New York City. Where there are luxury hotels and thousand dollar a night hookers. And you can drink the water. ;)

Yup we mere mortals were given access to some of that information vis a vi the dodgy dossier. Information based on a student's thesis that was 10 years out of date.

Perhaps you like to be spoonfed the 'truth' by Rumsfeld & Co, I on the other hand will not accept at face value nonsense even if its espoused by the Govt of the United States, or our own govt for that matter.

As for making anti-semetic comments, well thats twice now that someone has jumped up and down and made that claim.

I'll make this as simple as possible, criticising Israeli actions does not equal anti-semitism! Try and get your head around that and come to terms with it.
Just like criticising the UK or US govt's doesn't make me a communist, unless ofcourse you're still stuck in the McCarthy years!

You may hold Israel as a sacred cow, I certainly dont.

Rather than getting emotional, point out where you believe I'm wrong about either Israel or the US, instead of the usual reaction of calling people 'anti-semitic'.

You seem to have overlooked the rather SIMPLE fact that there are other semites in the Middle East, apart from those that live within the 'walls' of Israel!

Z

Zafar,

I must admit, one part of your post made me smile. If I wanted a man to accuse me of "getting emotional", I'd pick up the phone and call my husband. Some things are the same the world over, no?

I never said YOU were anti-semitic, I said I found your POSTS anti-semitic. And anti-US. That is my opinion. Which I believe I am entitled to. I made a distinction because I have no idea if you personally are anti-semitic, but if you are? Meh. I suppose that's your business. I'm not accusing you of being anything. But if I'm the second person to say it? Then there are probably others who also think so, but won't say so because they don't want to get hammered by three or four people and have to waste time justifying their opinion.

Yes, there are other semites in the Middle East. So? What has that got to do with anything? And who said Israel was a sacred cow? YOU keep bringing Israel up.

The Middle East has been in turmoil, and people there have been fighting and killing each other since long before the US, Bush, or Blair was a gleam in anyone's eye. The durn fools will probably still be fighting and killing each other long after you and I are dead, until there are none of them left, or until the last bloody judgement. Whichever comes first.

For the most part, we yanks are simple people. We really are. Are we elitist? Sometimes. Are we bullies? Yes maam. Do we place too much emphasis on money? Probably, but try getting by without it. (I was poor and happy for about 6 months when I was 18. Then I realized being broke sucked like a clogged drain, and it sure motivated me to get off my pretty little rear.) Hypocrites? The best in the world. Are we always right? Um, NO. Do we enjoy telling others what to do? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, we do like to boss, but if we see someone looking for a gas leak with a lit match? We'll sure say something. Whether it's against our religion or not.

Where I come from, if you have a problem, there are two things you can do about it. Well, three really.

1. You can sit and complain. This is pretty useless, and hey. NO ONE likes a whiner.

2. You can blame it on somebody else. See number 1.

3. You can get up off your tookus and DO something about it.

Guantanamo Bay, no matter how wrong and inhumane some might think it is, is our attempt to DO something about the crazies that are threatening us and flying airplanes into our buildings. And NO. Those that died DID NOT DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR LIVES CUT SHORT THAT DAY. Or am I wrong? Should we do nothing? Would you? It's why you see these young Iraqi kids throwing rocks at British and American troops. Of course, they got caught and were beaten for it. And they're lucky thats ALL that happened to them. But I have a grudging respect for them. At least they stopped complaining and did something. And until the day some lunatic flies a Boeing 757 into the Queen's bedroom, or into the Houses of Parliament, we've got nothing to talk about.

But just to show you my heart's in the right place and I'm not all bad, it's lunchtime here, and if we were all sitting at the same table? I'd fix each of you a killer taco salad, all the fresh squeezed orange juice you could drink (our orange trees went nuts this year) and you could even have some snickerdoodle cookies. I made 'em myself, and put lots of cinnamon. Yum. :D

:) Sierra

Clear? Crystal, thanks. Who will determine what constitutes a fair trial? Ya'll have made it abundantly clear that you don't trust us to do anything. Somehow I think you'd be unhappy with the results of ANY trial unless all of these people were completely exonerated and set free.



Well you'll be pleased to know you're wrong. I have no reason to have less faith in US justice than UK justice (neither are perfect, but they'll do). As you will see if you trawl through my posts, I am in no sense anti-American. Don't like your govt., but can't stand ours either.

Anne, I quite agree, they're supposed to be accountable to us. But do you honestly believe that any of us will ever get the truth? And if Bush and Blair make mistakes and fudge with the truth, why would the UN or indeed ANY other organization be any different? Think the UN, or the committee of MP's does EVERYTHING above board and that you see what's really going on? You see what they want you to see, my dear. They don't reveal any more than they're absolutely forced to. And if I were in their shoes? I'd probably do the same.


I put slightly more faith in the UN and Amnesty than I do in the corporate sponsored, oil obsessed Bush administration and the equally weak Blair government. I think I'll get a smidgen closer to the truth from the UN. But I still take it with a pinch of salt.

No matter who you chose to believe there are basic human rights here being disregarded and thats what I'm worried about.


Guantanamo Bay, no matter how wrong and inhumane some might think it is, is our attempt to DO something about the crazies that are threatening us and flying airplanes into our buildings. And NO. Those that died DID NOT DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR LIVES CUT SHORT THAT DAY. Or am I wrong? Should we do nothing? Would you? It's why you see these young Iraqi kids throwing rocks at British and American troops. Of course, they got caught and were beaten for it. And they're lucky thats ALL that happened to them. But I have a grudging respect for them. At least they stopped complaining and did something. And until the day some lunatic flies a Boeing 757 into the Queen's bedroom, or into the Houses of Parliament, we've got nothing to talk about.

We don't need someone to fly a plane into buckingham palace to undertand the gravity of the situation. I was as affected as anyone by 9/11. It was a horrific day which changed the way I thought about the world.. BUT it didn't make me think of revenge. It made me think what have we done to cause people to hate us so much. its not about kicking back and hurting those that hate us. Since when did two wrongs make a right?!?!? like NEVER!!!! Hate breeds more hate. This is not the way out of this nightmare.

NO we should support our american cousins in their fight against terrorism and I think those who are in that camp probably deserve to be there.
This is a war and in a war situation you have to fight fire with fire,I say let em all rot in hell.

NO we should support our american cousins in their fight against terrorism and I think those who are in that camp probably deserve to be there.
This is a war and in a war situation you have to fight fire with fire,I say let em all rot in hell.

..."probably deserve to be there"........."I say let 'em all rot in hell"

Thus speaks the true voice of BNP compassion.......
Probably? Hmm, high standard of proof Roy. Is that like, as in, the Muslims/Jews/blacks/Asians/Homosexuals (delete as appropriate) are probably guilty of everything, so we'll hate them anyway?

I put slightly more faith in the UN and Amnesty than I do in the corporate sponsored, oil obsessed Bush administration and the equally weak Blair government. I think I'll get a smidgen closer to the truth from the UN. But I still take it with a pinch of salt.

No matter who you chose to believe there are basic human rights here being disregarded and thats what I'm worried about.



We don't need someone to fly a plane into buckingham palace to undertand the gravity of the situation. I was as affected as anyone by 9/11. It was a horrific day which changed the way I thought about the world.. BUT it didn't make me think of revenge. It made me think what have we done to cause people to hate us so much. its not about kicking back and hurting those that hate us. Since when did two wrongs make a right?!?!? like NEVER!!!! Hate breeds more hate. This is not the way out of this nightmare.

Whoa nelly! Back up just a minute sister.

Who said anything about getting revenge? Maybe you should be asking the terrorists about that. They're the ones who seem hell bent on extracting "revenge" for whatever the west has done to upset and anger them in the past.

We just don't want this to happen again, and if we don't take steps to prevent it, it WILL happen again.

Look Anne. There are just some people you won't win with. Not EVER. No matter how nice you are, no matter how you try to help them. They'll hate you no matter what you do. Or don't do. You can do a million good things, and they'll only remember the one bad thing you did.

People cheat, people lie. They're cruel and inhumane. They accuse YOU of the very things they themselves do. They take unfair advantage and will steal your eye teeth when you open your mouth to yawn. Expecting others, even elected officials, hell, ESPECIALLY elected officials to behave themselves, tell the truth, or even do the job they were elected to do is asking too much sometimes.

I don't expect anything from anybody. That way I'm never disappointed.

When I was a teenager, I worked as a car hop at a drive in burger place. There were two salt shakers we kept CHAINED to the counter. Because people kept walking off with them. And even THOSE disappeared on a regular basis. Like those silly pens at the bank.

I don't have the answer. I wish I did, but I don't. If you do, please tell me.

:) Sierra

I'll make this as simple as possible, criticising Israeli actions does not equal anti-semitism!

Not really on-topic, but I wish more people would understand this.

/Edit

Sierra - now you have made me think of In n' Out and I don't think there is one here in Texas! :(

Double Double Animal style, please! :D

Who said anything about getting revenge? Maybe you should be asking the terrorists about that. They're the ones who seem hell bent on extracting "revenge" for whatever the west has done to upset and anger them in the past.

We just don't want this to happen again, and if we don't take steps to prevent it, it WILL happen again.

It will happen again no matter how many likely candidates Bush locks up and tortures on foreign soil. This isn't going to go away that easily.

Look Anne. There are just some people you won't win with. Not EVER. No matter how nice you are, no matter how you try to help them. They'll hate you no matter what you do. Or don't do. You can do a million good things, and they'll only remember the one bad thing you did.

I disagree. Using the excuse that people will always behave badly is no excuse to lower your standards and discard your morals. Imagine if everyone on the planet thought like that?! We really would be in the ****. Its like kids in the school yard.. surely we're beyond that kind of mentality?

The only way forward is to start showing a GOOD example. Something the UK and US governments seem unable to do at present.

I put slightly more faith in the UN and Amnesty than I do in the corporate sponsored, oil obsessed Bush administration and the equally weak Blair government. I think I'll get a smidgen closer to the truth from the UN. But I still take it with a pinch of salt.

That same UN which is in the pockets of the vilest dictators on the planet, and is embroiled up to its neck in the $21 billion Oil for Food scandal, which passes resolution after resolution condemning Israel but doesn't say a word about Ahmadinejad the Insanes desire to nuke Israel and casts a blind eye to those 300,000 Christians and Animists who have been brutally slain by the wicked janjaweed on behalf of the vile ogres of Khartoum.

No matter who you chose to believe there are basic human rights here being disregarded and thats what I'm worried about.

I don't give a fig about the human rights of those who wan't to destroy us.

We don't need someone to fly a plane into buckingham palace to undertand the gravity of the situation. I was as affected as anyone by 9/11. It was a horrific day which changed the way I thought about the world.. BUT it didn't make me think of revenge. It made me think what have we done to cause people to hate us so much. its not about kicking back and hurting those that hate us. Since when did two wrongs make a right?!?!? like NEVER!!!! Hate breeds more hate. This is not the way out of this nightmare.
Do you think those Islamists think two wrongs make a right? Their mission is to kill infidels and kill them in enormous numbers. It doesn't matter to them whether their victims are commuters on trains, workers in their offices or kids in classrooms - they are murder-obsessed wasters of carbon, and the only time we will be safe from them is when we've wiped them out to the last man. And unfortunately you were affected in a rather different way to me - by joining the dots up and noticing a trend throughout history - that this is the latest instalment of the oldest war in history - the 1,350-year-long war between dar al Islam and dar al Harb. And lets look at what drives the hatred which prompted Bali, Beslan, Luxor, 911, London, Madrid and many others. It is because we don't follow their doctrine. We treat women as equals and not as doormats. We listen to music, which they regard as evil. And lets look at what we did 'wrong'. Bin Laden hasn't forgiven Spain for the Reconquista, which was completed in 1492 - 514 years ago!!!! Nor the Austrians and Poles for Vienna in 1683. These fanatics treat events of hundreds of years ago as if they happened last week, and the present generation must suffer for the 'sins' of 20 generations ago. And he wants a global caliphate, and whilst he and his acolytes know this won't be achievable, thousands of innocents will die in the pursuit of his impossible dream - and if these terrorists achieve their ambition of getting nukes, they'll carry out atrocities which will pale 911 into insignificance.

It will happen again no matter how many likely candidates Bush locks up and tortures on foreign soil. This isn't going to go away that easily.



I disagree. Using the excuse that people will always behave badly is no excuse to lower your standards and discard your morals. Imagine if everyone on the planet thought like that?! We really would be in the ****. Its like kids in the school yard.. surely we're beyond that kind of mentality?

The only way forward is to start showing a GOOD example. Something the UK and US governments seem unable to do at present.
So what bad examples did those tourists in Luxor, those disco revellers in Bali, those 340 childern in Beslan, and those 291 Kenyans and Tanzanians, who became victims of Islamic terrorists show? Maybe you'll enlighten us and tell us what that five year old Irish girl who was killed on one of those 911 planes did that was so terrible. Pity your politically-correct contact lenses prevent you from spotting the real evil in this world.

It will happen again no matter how many likely candidates Bush locks up and tortures on foreign soil. This isn't going to go away that easily.

I disagree. Using the excuse that people will always behave badly is no excuse to lower your standards and discard your morals. Imagine if everyone on the planet thought like that?! We really would be in the ****. Its like kids in the school yard.. surely we're beyond that kind of mentality?

The only way forward is to start showing a GOOD example. Something the UK and US governments seem unable to do at present.

Anne, I wish I could talk to you in person, 'cause things are getting garbled.

Who said ANYTHING about lowering standards or discarding morals? Stop putting words in my mouth, puhleeze!

I don't need a lecture on morality just because I'm an American. This is the entire problem if you ask me. I grew up 20 miles from Berkeley, and I knew PLENTY of self righteous, I'm better than YOU are because I'm more moral, opposed to the Vietnam war types who cheated ruthlessly at business, underpaid their often (minority) employees and fudged on their taxes. When I was 19, I accepted a job offer from a friend of my father's, a married father of three whom I'd known since I was a little girl, and within two weeks I'd quit. He made numerous passes and couldn't keep his hands to himself.

If that doesn't destroy your faith in human nature, nothing will. I was crushed. I told my father and he wasn't pleased, but said something along the lines of, "you just can't trust some people". And that was the end of their friendship.

My sister works with a woman who together with her partner own several apartment buildings. They make no secret of the fact that they have no use for California's anti-discrimination laws, and regularly find ways to get around them. Did I also mention that this lady and her partner are gay? Their reasoning? She and her partner work hard for their money, it's their property, and they won't rent to blacks or mexicans because they would, in her words (not mine) "turn the place into a pig sty". However, I notice that they're not above hiring illegal mexicans to do cleaning and maintainence work on their buildings so they can pay them under the table.

I understand what you said about not lowering morals, and I agree with it. But you also can't be so gullible that you assume that if you're nice to everyone, that they'll be nice back. Things just aren't that way. And that's really all I have to say about that.

Sierra - now you have made me think of In n' Out and I don't think there is one here in Texas! :(

Double Double Animal style, please! :D

Awww, I'm sorry! No In N out in Texas? Say it aint so! I worked at the A&W Root Beer drive in, in San Ramon, California. We wore roller skates and everything. It was a fun, fun, job and my boss was a great guy. We thought of him as an old man. But when you're sixteen, someone who's thirty is old, right?

I will drive to In N out and order an animal style double double, and eat it. Just for you. ;)

:) Sierra

As for making anti-semetic comments, well thats twice now that someone has jumped up and down and made that claim.

You may hold Israel as a sacred cow, I certainly dont.
Z

Z.... make that 3 people people who are of the thinking that you are anti-semitic even though you choose your words carefully.... I have noticed over a few threads that you jump into the religious ones.... I take it you are Muslim.... tell me if you deny or believe in the holocaust? I know you think Israel is not a holy cow.... but just answer the question please.

You and I both know that Israel is hated by Arabs of the Muslim religion.... its just that every now and then your mask seems to slip to me.... when people ask a valid question you answer with ones like "who is the bigger bully?".... surely that is not a valid answer.

As for Gitmo.... I would rather see these fanatical idiots locked up by anyone prepared to do it and pay for it rather than have them on my doorstep.... and yes, I do believe in justice.... if an animal bites you then it should be put down.... the innocent dead will never get a trial.

Do you think those Islamists think two wrongs make a right? Their mission is to kill infidels and kill them in enormous numbers. It doesn't matter to them whether their victims are commuters on trains, workers in their offices or kids in classrooms - they are murder-obsessed wasters of carbon, and the only time we will be safe from them is when we've wiped them out to the last man. And unfortunately you were affected in a rather different way to me - by joining the dots up and noticing a trend throughout history - that this is the latest instalment of the oldest war in history - the 1,350-year-long war between dar al Islam and dar al Harb. And lets look at what drives the hatred which prompted Bali, Beslan, Luxor, 911, London, Madrid and many others. It is because we don't follow their doctrine. We treat women as equals and not as doormats. We listen to music, which they regard as evil. And lets look at what we did 'wrong'. Bin Laden hasn't forgiven Spain for the Reconquista, which was completed in 1492 - 514 years ago!!!! Nor the Austrians and Poles for Vienna in 1683. These fanatics treat events of hundreds of years ago as if they happened last week, and the present generation must suffer for the 'sins' of 20 generations ago. And he wants a global caliphate, and whilst he and his acolytes know this won't be achievable, thousands of innocents will die in the pursuit of his impossible dream - and if these terrorists achieve their ambition of getting nukes, they'll carry out atrocities which will pale 911 into insignificance.

Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this.

What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people".

Zafar,

I must admit, one part of your post made me smile. If I wanted a man to accuse me of "getting emotional", I'd pick up the phone and call my husband. Some things are the same the world over, no?

I never said YOU were anti-semitic, I said I found your POSTS anti-semitic. And anti-US. That is my opinion. Which I believe I am entitled to. I made a distinction because I have no idea if you personally are anti-semitic, but if you are? Meh. I suppose that's your business. I'm not accusing you of being anything. But if I'm the second person to say it? Then there are probably others who also think so, but won't say so because they don't want to get hammered by three or four people and have to waste time justifying their opinion.

Yes, there are other semites in the Middle East. So? What has that got to do with anything? And who said Israel was a sacred cow? YOU keep bringing Israel up.

The Middle East has been in turmoil, and people there have been fighting and killing each other since long before the US, Bush, or Blair was a gleam in anyone's eye. The durn fools will probably still be fighting and killing each other long after you and I are dead, until there are none of them left, or until the last bloody judgement. Whichever comes first.

For the most part, we yanks are simple people. We really are. Are we elitist? Sometimes. Are we bullies? Yes maam. Do we place too much emphasis on money? Probably, but try getting by without it. (I was poor and happy for about 6 months when I was 18. Then I realized being broke sucked like a clogged drain, and it sure motivated me to get off my pretty little rear.) Hypocrites? The best in the world. Are we always right? Um, NO. Do we enjoy telling others what to do? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, we do like to boss, but if we see someone looking for a gas leak with a lit match? We'll sure say something. Whether it's against our religion or not.

Where I come from, if you have a problem, there are two things you can do about it. Well, three really.

1. You can sit and complain. This is pretty useless, and hey. NO ONE likes a whiner.

2. You can blame it on somebody else. See number 1.

3. You can get up off your tookus and DO something about it.

Guantanamo Bay, no matter how wrong and inhumane some might think it is, is our attempt to DO something about the crazies that are threatening us and flying airplanes into our buildings. And NO. Those that died DID NOT DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR LIVES CUT SHORT THAT DAY. Or am I wrong? Should we do nothing? Would you? It's why you see these young Iraqi kids throwing rocks at British and American troops. Of course, they got caught and were beaten for it. And they're lucky thats ALL that happened to them. But I have a grudging respect for them. At least they stopped complaining and did something. And until the day some lunatic flies a Boeing 757 into the Queen's bedroom, or into the Houses of Parliament, we've got nothing to talk about.

But just to show you my heart's in the right place and I'm not all bad, it's lunchtime here, and if we were all sitting at the same table? I'd fix each of you a killer taco salad, all the fresh squeezed orange juice you could drink (our orange trees went nuts this year) and you could even have some snickerdoodle cookies. I made 'em myself, and put lots of cinnamon. Yum. :D

:) Sierra

Hi Sierra,

Firstly let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the Americans being simple folk. I spent 9 months living and working in the states during the 90's, and with one exception (where a drunk thought I was Australian?).

I have to say ordinary Americans were very welcoming people.

I was in South Carolina, and the only time I was slightly worried was during July 4th, where there was some serious hate being aired on some of the radio stations. Nonetheless we were constantly invited to July the 4th parties :)

My qualms are with the US govt, not the American people. Rest assured I am definately anti US foreign policy, as well as anti UK foreign policy.

Insofar as anti-semitic comments, its unbelievable, that to question Israeli govt policy is somehow equated as being an anti-semitic. Like I said I disagree with many of the foreign policies of my own Govt, so that would also make me anti-British ?

Interms of values and aspirations of American people, I doubt that they are very much different to those of people's around the world.

Again I agree with you vis a vi the 3 points you listed, BUT, action without understanding is not necessarily productive. Sure the US 'reacted', but was it the best or most reasonable, or indeed an honest reaction to the events of 11th of Sept 2001 ?

Ordinary folk across the world are paying the price for the actions of their own govt's or the actions of external govt's. No the people who died during those attacks in the US didn't deserve to die, no more so than those people who lost their lives in the attacks on the 7th of July. However did those 500,000 children who died as a result of US endorsed sanctions on Iraq deserve to die ? Did the people in Iraq deserve to have their lands contaminated with Depleted Uranium ? An act for which God knows how many generations of Iraqi's will pay the price in terms of cancer and birth defects!

The US Govt and inparticular its foreign policy ARE hypocritical. How many people raised an eyebrow during the events of the 11th of Sep 1973 which occurred in Chile ? or all those 'regime' changes that the US carried out in the South America's for the last century ?

Do you remember the 'War on Terrorism' that was carried out by Ronald Reagon during the 80's ? How many of those nations attacked illegally in the South America's had actually committed crimes against the US ?

Sayings such as you reap what you sow, and what goes around comes around are universal amongst the people's of the world.

Al-Queda, the nasty bogey man of the west was actually funded by the US when the US wanted to give the Soviets a bloody nose in Afghanistan. Look through google and you'll find picture's of Ronald Reagan dressed as a 'Taliban'.

The US Govt likes to talk about all those nasty dictatorships around the world, yet it fails to take responsibility for getting most of them into power and then supporting them in the first place. (Often by carrying out coup deta's against democratically elected govt's!)

If thats not hypocracy, what is ?

You said And until the day some lunatic flies a Boeing 757 into the Queen's bedroom, or into the Houses of Parliament, we've got nothing to talk about. well let me tell you that we've had terrorism here for the last several decades through the acts of the IRA. We've had city centre's bombed, hotels bombed etc, and guess what the US govt allowed the IRA to raise funds! Gee isn't that sponsoring terrorism ?

As a reasonable person, (which I'm certain you are :) ), if someone lied to you time and time again, would you believe them ?

Thats exactly what's happened vis a vi this 'War of Terrorism'. I've lost count of the number of lies that were spread by the US/UK in this so called war. Nearly everything they claimed, upon closer inspection turned out to untrue, and yet we're expected to 'believe' their lies regarding Guantanamo!

No one has said that we should simply open the gates and let them out.
What we have been saying is that if they're accused of crimes, put them in a court of law, present the evidence and let the courts decide their guilt or innocent.

Is that really that alien a concept ?

LOL, I'm hungry now so off to get some breakfast.

Z

Z.... make that 3 people people who are of the thinking that you are anti-semitic even though you choose your words carefully.... I have noticed over a few threads that you jump into the religious ones.... I take it you are Muslim.... tell me if you deny or believe in the holocaust? I know you think Israel is not a holy cow.... but just answer the question please.

You and I both know that Israel is hated by Arabs of the Muslim religion.... its just that every now and then your mask seems to slip to me.... when people ask a valid question you answer with ones like "who is the bigger bully?".... surely that is not a valid answer.

As for Gitmo.... I would rather see these fanatical idiots locked up by anyone prepared to do it and pay for it rather than have them on my doorstep.... and yes, I do believe in justice.... if an animal bites you then it should be put down.... the innocent dead will never get a trial.

Jake01,

Yes I am muslim, and therefore I have a particular interest in the current 'climate'.

If you're the 3rd person who thinks I'm 'anti-semetic', then perhaps you'll be kind enough to share with me WHY you think that way.

Again, I can only presume this has some linkage with the comments I've made about Israel.

Deny the holocaust ??????? far from it! I've previously listed 3 distinct types of people, I'd say I'm in the group that believe millions of Jews were killed by the Nazi's during WWII. Was it 6 million ? I honestly dont know.

I believe that the holocaust has become an industry, which has been politically misused, and before you call that 'anti-semetic' I'd like to point out that many Jewish people (many of whom lost loved ones at the hands of the Nazi's) also believe this, Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky are amongst this group as well as many orthodox Jewish groups.

Are they anti-semetic ???

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think Zionism = Judaism ?

Its not rocket science. Lets look at it like this.

If after I'd kill your whole family, you then killed a member of my family, I was to jump up and down and say that 'he killed a member of my family, he's this and he's that', most 'reasonable' people would say that I was being stupid, as I'd

a) committed the bigger crime
b) committed the crime first

It doesn't mean that you killing my family member was right, as my family member was innocent of the crime I had committed! BUT someone could 'understand' why you responded in the manner you did.

That is how I see the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

Is that anti-semetic ??????

As for 'Gitmo', its reassuring to know that you take accusations made by the US Govt as being the 'Gospel Truth'...

If you actually deep down believe in the concept of truth and justice, you would be looking back at all the claims made by Rumsfeld & Co and ask yourself how many of them were actually true.

How do you actually ascertain the truth ?

If an accusation was made against YOU by the govt, would you want to have a fair hearing in a court of law or would you be happy to simply be locked up in a cage ?

Z

So what bad examples did those tourists in Luxor, those disco revellers in Bali, those 340 childern in Beslan, and those 291 Kenyans and Tanzanians, who became victims of Islamic terrorists show? Maybe you'll enlighten us and tell us what that five year old Irish girl who was killed on one of those 911 planes did that was so terrible. Pity your politically-correct contact lenses prevent you from spotting the real evil in this world.

I'm not saying the people who committed these crimes aren't horrible individuals or that innocent people deserved to die. What I'm saying is you can't disregard the normal rules of society because of some horrific terrorist act was committed. As has been said many time before in this thread - would you like to be locked up in a cage without trial because some government had some (possibly dubious) information about you? You'd be screaming for someone to hear your case, to prove your innocence. Wouldn't you?

Locking people away indefinitely without trial is not going to stop people blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings. Its only going to make it worse.

I understand what you said about not lowering morals, and I agree with it. But you also can't be so gullible that you assume that if you're nice to everyone, that they'll be nice back. Things just aren't that way. And that's really all I have to say about that.

I know you can't force people to be nice back. But you can't use that as an excuse to invade countries or disregard human rights. A bully can't justify his behaviour with "well, people weren't nice to me", "they hit me first", "they hit me harder".

I know you can't force people to be nice back. But you can't use that as an excuse to invade countries or disregard human rights. A bully can't justify his behaviour with "well, people weren't nice to me", "they hit me first", "they hit me harder".
Lets face it, had you, and these messageboards been around in 1940, you would probably have been telling us that the Blitz was happening because we declared war on Nazi Germany. The likes of yourself would have protested against the bombing of German cities because we might kill innocent civilians, and denounced Churchill as a war criminal. Thank God people like yourself didn't wield power in Britain 66 years ago, otherwise we would have spent the last six decades living under Nazi rule.

And one last point. Had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, how else could we have taken out thousands of the sort of terrorists who carried out atrocities like 911? Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorist havens at the time of 911. Their rulers supported and financed terrorism, just as Ahmadinejad does today. Today we face a real war, every bit as real as World War II, and against savage opponents who wouldn't hesitate to use nukes against us, if they ever get them.

Lets face it, had you, and these messageboards been around in 1940, you would probably have been telling us that the Blitz was happening because we declared war on Nazi Germany. The likes of yourself would have protested against the bombing of German cities because we might kill innocent civilians, and denounced Churchill as a war criminal. Thank God people like yourself didn't wield power in Britain 66 years ago, otherwise we would have spent the last six decades living under Nazi rule.

I notice that despite the amount of time being spent by yourself, Bartfarst, and to a lesser extent Sierra, in pronouncing ever-more hysterical and far-fetched accusations against the people on the other side of the debate, none of you have yet got round to making specific allegations against specific individuals currently held in Guantanamo. A lot of people reading this will assume that's because you have no more information on the detainees and their alleged crimes than the rest of us, which makes it all the stranger that you are so convinced of their guilt.

I notice that despite the amount of time being spent by yourself, Bartfarst, and to a lesser extent Sierra, in pronouncing ever-more hysterical and far-fetched accusations against the people on the other side of the debate, none of you have yet got round to making specific allegations against specific individuals currently held in Guantanamo. A lot of people reading this will assume that's because you have no more information on the detainees and their alleged crimes than the rest of us, which makes it all the stranger that you are so convinced of their guilt.
These are not far-fetched. You, Anne23 and your ilk are of the persuasion that we should just turn the other cheek, even if it means the nukeing of London or New York with the loss of millions of lives. You are aligning yourselves with terrorists captured on the battlefield, who went out to Afghanistan to ally themselves with heinous terror outfits who are devoted to the wholesale slaughter of innocents, and to kill British and US troops.

Nuking of London or New York is a terrorist attack would your statement be applicable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?????

These are not far-fetched. You, Anne23 and your ilk are of the persuasion that we should just turn the other cheek, even if it means the nukeing of London or New York with the loss of millions of lives. You are aligning yourselves with terrorists captured on the battlefield, who went out to Afghanistan to ally themselves with heinous terror outfits who are devoted to the wholesale slaughter of innocents, and to kill British and US troops.

You're getting sillier and sillier. And you've still not provided any evidence.

Nuking of London or New York is a terrorist attack would your statement be applicable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?????
We were at war back in 1945. Perhaps you would have preferred to see five million troops and civilians get killed in an invasion of Japan, and the deaths of more soldiers in Burma, India etc - killed fighting and starving in concentration camps as the alternative to using two nukes to immediately finish a war at a cost of 150,000 lives. Or perhaps you are the kind of conspiracy theorist who believes Pearl Harbor was bombed by US pilots flying Japanese planes as a pretext to war against Japan.

We were at war back in 1945. Perhaps you would have preferred to see five million troops and civilians get killed in an invasion of Japan, and the deaths of more soldiers in Burma, India etc - killed fighting and starving in concentration camps as the alternative to using two nukes to immediately finish a war at a cost of 150,000 lives. Or perhaps you are the kind of conspiracy theorist who believes Pearl Harbor was bombed by US pilots flying Japanese planes as a pretext to war against Japan.

I think you'll find that the US army estimated a loss of 200,000 troops in taking Japan, so decided to kill 200,000 civilians in order to get the Japanese to surrender.

Thats a war crime!

As for Pearl Harbour, that was carried out by the Japanese because the US had placed Japan under sanctions.

I notice that despite the amount of time being spent by yourself, Bartfarst, and to a lesser extent Sierra, in pronouncing ever-more hysterical and far-fetched accusations against the people on the other side of the debate, none of you have yet got round to making specific allegations against specific individuals currently held in Guantanamo. A lot of people reading this will assume that's because you have no more information on the detainees and their alleged crimes than the rest of us, which makes it all the stranger that you are so convinced of their guilt.

TeaFan,

You are in danger of propogating another myth (repeated almost ad nauseum and seemingly taken for granted on this forum) that the US government has provided no specific information about the reasons for the detention of specific individuals at Gitmo. In fact the Combatant Status Review Board has examined every single case and has given a list of specific reasons in relation to each detainee, measured against a standard set of criteria deriving from its published definition of 'Enemy Combatant'. Moreover, it has also published these reasons on the web, in the form of declassified documents (see the attached url).

Another myth repeated on this thread is that the US government refuses to allow anyone into Gitmo to see for themselves. In fact, since it opened, hundreds of journalists and congressment have visited this facility (only last week the Daily Telegraph published a big 'inside Gitmo' report which dispelled a lot of the myths surrounding it). As for the charge that the US government refused to allow the UN delegation into Gitmo, this is also false. In fact, it invited them in, but the delegation refused this invitation on the grounds that they would not be allowed unsupervised access to all detainees (including the hard core cases), something which the US allows only to the international Red Cross. The recent UN report was written therefore by people who have never set foot in Gitmo.

As for the 'torture' charge made in the UN report, this seems to relate primarily to the practice of force feeding the hard core element on hunger strike. As I said in a previous post, there has not been a single death at Gitmo since it opened. No doubt some of the hard core fanatics would like to score a propaganda victory by starving themselves to death, so it is perfectly understandable for the US authorities to seek to prevent this by forcefeeding them (Ian Brady, the vile child killer has been force fed in British jails for years and we don't hear any complaints about him being 'tortured' by the British authorities).

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/final_CSRB_6.pdf

That makes it ok then does it the killing of 150,000 innocent civillians!
Conspiracy theorist? I rather think i use my own nouse to come to my own decisions not those fed to me by the media which is all a one sided account!
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter!

Lets face it, had you, and these messageboards been around in 1940, you would probably have been telling us that the Blitz was happening because we declared war on Nazi Germany. The likes of yourself would have protested against the bombing of German cities because we might kill innocent civilians, and denounced Churchill as a war criminal. Thank God people like yourself didn't wield power in Britain 66 years ago, otherwise we would have spent the last six decades living under Nazi rule.

And one last point. Had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, how else could we have taken out thousands of the sort of terrorists who carried out atrocities like 911? Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorist havens at the time of 911. Their rulers supported and financed terrorism, just as Ahmadinejad does today. Today we face a real war, every bit as real as World War II, and against savage opponents who wouldn't hesitate to use nukes against us, if they ever get them.

Some facts to help.

1) 'Terrorists' arrived in Iraq AFTER we invaded.
2) Iraq had NOTHING to do with September the 11th.
3) Iran supported Hizbollah BEFORE Ahmadinejad was elected.

The was we face today is because people have problems understanding facts, and instead prefer to be led blindly by our lying leaders.

Z

I think you'll find that the US army estimated a loss of 200,000 troops in taking Japan, so decided to kill 200,000 civilians in order to get the Japanese to surrender.

Thats a war crime!

As for Pearl Harbour, that was carried out by the Japanese because the US had placed Japan under sanctions.
I hope you know the US Army lost 50,000 men taking Okinawa and 28,000 men taking Iwo Jima. They thought they'd lose over a million men, a further 2.5 million Japanese soldiers and civilians would be killed, not to mention the number killed elsewhere with a war lasting into 1947. But Zafar, we have garnered the gist of your postings. You hate America and Americans. You hate the West. You condemn everything this country does. You're not fit to live in the West. But hatred of the US is the default position of every failed state and failed individual.

Some facts to help.

1) 'Terrorists' arrived in Iraq AFTER we invaded.
2) Iraq had NOTHING to do with September the 11th.
3) Iran supported Hizbollah BEFORE Ahmadinejad was elected.

The was we face today is because people have problems understanding facts, and instead prefer to be led blindly by our lying leaders.

Z
I'll tell you what we remember. Muslims dancing in the street and handing out sweets after 911. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. He butchered his people and tried to have George Bush snr assassinated - an act of war if ever there was one. Terrorists have been present in Iraq for years - before and after 911. And we know Iran has been a sick repository of terrorism for 27 years - but time is running out on the evil men of Iran.

Ihope you know the US Army lost 110,000 men taking Okinawa and 28,000 men taking Iwo Jima. They thought they'd lose over a million men, a further 2.5 million Japanese soldiers and civilians would be killed, not to mention the number killed elsewhere with a war lasting into 1947. But Zafar, we have garnered the gist of your postings. You hate America and Americans. You hate the West. You condemn everything this country does. You're not fit to live in the West. But hatred of the US is the default position of every failed state and failed individual.


Yes I do, but you haven't disputed what I said.

I dont HATE the West, I disagree with Western Foreign Policy, something that we as citizens have very little say on!

I dont want to offend, but your way of assessing the situation is similar to the zealots in the East who say all Europeans are 'Crusaders'.

Z

I'll tell you what we remember. Muslims dancing in the street and handing out sweets after 911. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. He butchered his people and tried to have George Bush snr assassinated - an act of war if ever there was one. Terrorists have ben present in Iraq for years - before and after 911. And we know Iran has been a sick repository of terrorism for 27 years - but time is running out on the evil men of Iran.

1) 'Terrorists' arrived in Iraq AFTER we invaded.
2) Iraq had NOTHING to do with September the 11th.
3) Iran supported Hizbollah BEFORE Ahmadinejad was elected.

Are these 3 points true or false ?

Z

Firecracker calling for the assasination of some one is not an act of war but can be just rhetoric.
what about mugabe in in zimbabwe allowing the slaughter of white farmers.
saddams crimes have not yet been proven? innocent till proven guilty and what not.

TeaFan,

You are in danger of propogating another myth (repeated almost ad nauseum and seemingly taken for granted on this forum) that the US government has provided no specific information about the reasons for the detention of specific individuals at Gitmo. In fact the Combatant Status Review Board has examined every single case and has given a list of specific reasons in relation to each detainee, measured against a standard set of criteria deriving from its published definition of 'Enemy Combatant'. Moreover, it has also published these reasons on the web, in the form of declassified documents (see the attached url).



Not at all LC, simply asking firecracker to back up his/her claims. It shouldn't be down to you or anyone else to bail him/her out when s/he has had ample opportunity to make his/her case in over 20 posts.

I wasn't aware that it was under question whether the US military had provided specific information. The problem is that the information remains untested. The US military has provided the information, and as it makes clear in the documents you linked to, it is intended that only a US military tribunal judge whether or not that information is accurate. This is what many people, myself included, would consider unreliable and a conflict of interest.

All I'm asking is that this information be tested in a proper court, and I'm surprised this is considered so controversial. It probably doesn't help that this point of view is so consistently misrepresented as "wanting to let them all out".

Jake01,

Yes I am muslim, and therefore I have a particular interest in the current 'climate'.

If you're the 3rd person who thinks I'm 'anti-semetic', then perhaps you'll be kind enough to share with me WHY you think that way.

Again, I can only presume this has some linkage with the comments I've made about Israel.

You certainly seem to use every opportunity to do this and it is well known the majority of Muslims blame Israel for the current state of things.... however if Israel was to disappear off the face of the earth.... I wonder quite where the anger and hatred would lean then.


Deny the holocaust ??????? far from it! I've previously listed 3 distinct types of people, I'd say I'm in the group that believe millions of Jews were killed by the Nazi's during WWII. Was it 6 million ? I honestly dont know.

I believe that the holocaust has become an industry, which has been politically misused, and before you call that 'anti-semetic' I'd like to point out that many Jewish people (many of whom lost loved ones at the hands of the Nazi's) also believe this, Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky are amongst this group as well as many orthodox Jewish groups.

Are they anti-semetic ???

I am glad you believe this.... as for being an industry as you put it.... not amongst the western population.


Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think Zionism = Judaism ?

You know that judaism is of the faith.... and as for zionism. see attached link for a better history...too long to write about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Its not rocket science. Lets look at it like this.

If after I'd kill your whole family, you then killed a member of my family, I was to jump up and down and say that 'he killed a member of my family, he's this and he's that', most 'reasonable' people would say that I was being stupid, as I'd

a) committed the bigger crime
b) committed the crime first

It doesn't mean that you killing my family member was right, as my family member was innocent of the crime I had committed! BUT someone could 'understand' why you responded in the manner you did.

That is how I see the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

Is that anti-semetic ??????

As for 'Gitmo', its reassuring to know that you take accusations made by the US Govt as being the 'Gospel Truth'...

If you actually deep down believe in the concept of truth and justice, you would be looking back at all the claims made by Rumsfeld & Co and ask yourself how many of them were actually true.

How do you actually ascertain the truth ?

Going back to the point of bullying and who is the bigger again.... it doesn't matter, the fact is what we are dealing with is here now and very dangerous... you harp on about Israel again and completely ignore what goes on in other Muslim Countries where it seems acceptable for Muslim Brother to slaughter Muslim Brother in the name of your religion....Rwanda for instance ( this is going of topic now but relavent.)

If an accusation was made against YOU by the govt, would you want to have a fair hearing in a court of law or would you be happy to simply be locked up in a cage ?

Z

We are fighting a war against people who don't dress as combatants.... who blend into the crowd and attack like cowards.... I doubt they have the stomach for a real fight.... these people in Gitmo have proven reasons for being there.... see the link in LC's post.

If I were to be locked up inocently then yes I would be given the chance to clear my name in a court.... but if I was suspected of terrorism I would be swept off the streets with no rights.... bit like Gitmo really. I do not disagree with that policy. What does concern me though is people disliking American and British policy designed to protect its people living in its land when the likes of Rwanda don't even get a look in.... suppose its down to the yanks and the brits again.... or maybe Israel.

Firecracker calling for the assasination of some one is not an act of war but can be just rhetoric.
what about mugabe in in zimbabwe allowing the slaughter of white farmers.
saddams crimes have not yet been proven? innocent till proven guilty and what not.
So can you tell us what happened to those one million victims of his regime. Oh I get it - they simply committed mass suicide. Perhaps in your mind, those 5,000 Kurds gassed at Halabja simply stuck their heads in their gas ovens. And another world leader calling for the assassination of a sitting President is an act of war against the US, just as another world leader calling for the assassination of Blair would be an act of war against the UK.

And I suppose if Blair and Bush were to announce tomorrow that they were going to topple Mugabe, within five minutes you and your ilk would be out in the streets and on these boards defending him. :loopy:

I suppose the sanctions imposed on Iraq had no factor in the death of these one million?
I'll wait till the verdict of the trial i dont want my decision to be made on what the media wants me to see and hear!

You certainly seem to use every opportunity to do this and it is well known the majority of Muslims blame Israel for the current state of things.... however if Israel was to disappear off the face of the earth.... I wonder quite where the anger and hatred would lean then.

I generally tend to reference Israel in debates about double standards.
Israel was a big cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, hence I tend to mention it.

Israel is just one issue, amongst many, and by no means is it the only one.



I am glad you believe this.... as for being an industry as you put it.... not amongst the western population.

I'd have to disagree, as most of the academics who have argued and researched this are from and live in the west, but I suppose its not something that's there in the mainstream western populations.


You know that judaism is of the faith.... and as for zionism. see attached link for a better history...too long to write about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism


However do you believe that to challenge Zionism interms of its practices = anti-semitism ?



Going back to the point of bullying and who is the bigger again.... it doesn't matter, the fact is what we are dealing with is here now and very dangerous... you harp on about Israel again and completely ignore what goes on in other Muslim Countries where it seems acceptable for Muslim Brother to slaughter Muslim Brother in the name of your religion....Rwanda for instance ( this is going of topic now but relavent.)


Again if you look at some of my posts, I've criticised 'muslim' countries.
It certainly is used by the Govt's in those lands to 'deflect' attention from their own practices, and many of those Govt's were/are 'close allies' of the US. Nonetheless, it doesn't detract from what OUR govt supports.

I would much rather concentrate on the actions of our elected leaders, as they are the ones accountable to us.

That does not mean I support ANY of the 'muslim' govts and their actions!

If an accusation was made against YOU by the govt, would you want to have a fair hearing in a court of law or would you be happy to simply be locked up in a cage ?

Z

We are fighting a war against people who don't dress as combatants.... who blend into the crowd and attack like cowards.... I doubt they have the stomach for a real fight.... these people in Gitmo have proven reasons for being there.... see the link in LC's post.

If I were to be locked up inocently then yes I would be given the chance to clear my name in a court.... but if I was suspected of terrorism I would be swept off the streets with no rights.... bit like Gitmo really. I do not disagree with that policy. What does concern me though is people disliking American and British policy designed to protect its people living in its land when the likes of Rwanda don't even get a look in.... suppose its down to the yanks and the brits again.... or maybe Israel.[/QUOTE]

Guerilla warfare is not a new concept, our own history vis a vi the Boer wars is testamont to this fact.
I would hardly call strapping a bomb to oneself and detonating a 'cowardly' act, desperate perhaps, but certainly not cowardly.

Pressing a button and sending a cruise missile on the other hand .........

I think we will differ on this point, as unlike you, I have a 'tan all year round' so I'm probably much more likely to find myself in that situation than your goodself.

LordC is simply showing us links to US Govt documents, he may as well have placed a link to the 'Dodgy' dossier and accepted that as the gospel truth.

History, even recent history shows that we the members of the public find out the truth decades after our leaders have lied to us.
I just find it unfathomable that we are willing to drop the idea's of 'justice' because someone in the Govt or military say so. They hardly have a good track record of 'intelligence' now do they ?

I suppose the sanctions imposed on Iraq had no factor in the death of these one million?
I'll wait till the verdict of the trial i dont want my decision to be made on what the media wants me to see and hear!
Sanctions had nothing to do with it. Saddam salted 20 billion out of his country into his personal bank accounts, and deliberately starved his people apart from his most loyal cronies and blamed it on the West (but then blaming everything that goes wrong on the West and Israel rather than taking a long hard look at themselves is the default state of failed Muslim kleptocracies). He built over 1,000 palaces for himself - one of the biggest embezzlements in history. And the UN didn't want anything doing about the Oil for Food scandal because leading UN figures were up to their eyeballs in it.

Think you have me confused with a Saddam loyalist!

Zafar...

I think that anything should be challenged if it is not right.... but your constant reference to Israel made me challenge you.

As for "suicide bombers".... whereas you seem to think they are brave.... then my thoughts are they are fanatical, idelogically charged "cowards" of the highest order.... to go amongst people and detonate oneself is depicable just to take innocent life in the name of organised religion.... its abhorrent and cowardly in the highest degree.... these people are brainwashed into believing they will go onto something much better.... the other cowards are the ones involved who never get to press the button.

As for cruise misiles.... no right minded person sends another out to commit suicide when it is possible to do it from afar.... no ideological nonsense there.... only common sense.

That makes it ok then does it the killing of 150,000 innocent civillians!
Conspiracy theorist? I rather think i use my own nouse to come to my own decisions not those fed to me by the media which is all a one sided account!
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter!
I think we've gathered as to whose side you're on in this war for our civilization - and its certainly not ours.

I pledge allegance with no one!
i will criticise any government policies of any country you wish me to comment on!

It would seem the best solution to the whole problem would be to commission a squadron of British Airways 747s, put all the Guantanamo inmates aboard and fly them to Sheffield City airport, and give them a nice rent free flat each on the Manor estate. Runways too short? Even better!
Zafar my arab friend, you mentioned propaganda earlier. All those pictures of skyscrapers falling in NYC in 1991 were great propaganda weren't they.

Sierra, we're wasting our time here, let's go home

Zafar...

I think that anything should be challenged if it is not right.... but your constant reference to Israel made me challenge you.

As for "suicide bombers".... whereas you seem to think they are brave.... then my thoughts are they are fanatical, idelogically charged "cowards" of the highest order.... to go amongst people and detonate oneself is depicable just to take innocent life in the name of organised religion.... its abhorrent and cowardly in the highest degree.... these people are brainwashed into believing they will go onto something much better.... the other cowards are the ones involved who never get to press the button.

As for cruise misiles.... no right minded person sends another out to commit suicide when it is possible to do it from afar.... no ideological nonsense there.... only common sense.


Jake,

Gladly its a free'ish country, and we are free to question each others views.

Hopefully we can do it in a civilised manner, without resorting to the usual name calling, jeering etc.

I never said or implied the act of suicide bombing was brave, probably desperate but certainly not cowardly.

To take innocent life is abhorrant period, be it in the name of religion or in the name of democracy, be it by a suicide bomber, or by the order of a president/prime minister.

Cowards IMO are those who call for killing / war, but aren't willing to risk their lives in the 'great' cause.

Z

Zafar...

I think that anything should be challenged if it is not right.... but your constant reference to Israel made me challenge you.

As for "suicide bombers".... whereas you seem to think they are brave.... then my thoughts are they are fanatical, idelogically charged "cowards" of the highest order.... to go amongst people and detonate oneself is depicable just to take innocent life in the name of organised religion.... its abhorrent and cowardly in the highest degree.... these people are brainwashed into believing they will go onto something much better.... the other cowards are the ones involved who never get to press the button.

As for cruise misiles.... no right minded person sends another out to commit suicide when it is possible to do it from afar.... no ideological nonsense there.... only common sense.

Well said Jake. Suicide bombing involves not a nano- second of physical pain to the bomber (contrast this with the fate of the injured victims, many of whom, as in the case of 7/7, were maimed for life). Given that these deluded miscreants believe that they will enter a paradise with, among other delights, gaggles of obliging houris to minister to their every need, it is also a form of extreme narcissism. Both the 9/11 and 7/7 packs of mass murderers had lived soft, privileged lives and certainly had no experience of acute physical pain. I believe that they would have probably squealed like stuck pigs had they been made to endure real pain as a result of their nefarious deeds..

I am frequently amused by the Janus face of Western islamic miltants, who, emboldened by our lax and supine legal authorities which allow them virtually free reign to openly advocate mass murder, cast themselves in the roles of brave warriors and Jihadis. However, as soon as they are collared for some offence, or if they find themselves in Belmarsh or in Gitmo, start squealing about their 'human rights', and seek every avenue to take advantage of the Western standards of justice and human rights which they have heretofore claimed to detest. This is also often done also with appeals to daddy (to tell the world what a wonderful peace loving son he has); or to certain morally purblind 'human rights' groups, or to (in some cases) shyster lawyers to help bail them out.

It would seem the best solution to the whole problem would be to commission a squadron of British Airways 747s, put all the Guantanamo inmates aboard and fly them to Sheffield City airport, and give them a nice rent free flat each on the Manor estate. Runways too short? Even better!
Zafar my arab friend, you mentioned propaganda earlier. All those pictures of skyscrapers falling in NYC in 1991 were great propaganda weren't they.

Buck,

lol, everyone 'tanned all year round' aren't Arabs :)

Pictures of skyscrapers falling in NYC 1991 ?

Z

Jake,

Gladly its a free'ish country, and we are free to question each others views.

Hopefully we can do it in a civilised manner, without resorting to the usual name calling, jeering etc.

I never said or implied the act of suicide bombing was brave, probably desperate but certainly not cowardly.

To take innocent life is abhorrant period, be it in the name of religion or in the name of democracy, be it by a suicide bomber, or by the order of a president/prime minister.

Cowards IMO are those who call for killing / war, but aren't willing to risk their lives in the 'great' cause.

Zif the worst ever came to the worst which army would you join ? in order to fight your great cause,

Well said Jake. Suicide bombing involves not a nano- second of physical pain to the bomber (contrast this with the fate of the injured victims, many of whom, as in the case of 7/7, were maimed for life). Given that these deluded miscreants believe that they will enter a paradise with, among other delights, gaggles of obliging houris to minister to their every need, it is also a form of extreme narcissism. Both the 9/11 and 7/7 packs of mass murderers had lived soft, privileged lives and certainly had no experience of acute physical pain. I believe that they would have probably squealed like stuck pigs had they been made to endure real pain as a result of their nefarious deeds..

I am frequently amused by the Janus face of Western islamic miltants, who, emboldened by our lax and supine legal authorities which allow them virtually free reign to openly advocate mass murder, cast themselves in the roles of brave warriors and Jihadis. However, as soon as they are collared for some offence, or if they find themselves in the nick or in Gitmo, start squealing about their 'human rights', and seek every avenue to take advantage of the Western standards of justice and human rights which they have heretofore claimed to detest. This is also often done also with appeals to daddy (to tell the world what a wonderful peace loving son he has); or to certain morally purblind 'human rights' groups, or to (in some cases) shyster lawyers to help bail them out.

LordC,

Western islamic militants are the result of our govt giving people like Abu Hamza free reign to spread their BS.

Did you hear of any such groups in the UK before his arrival in 1996 ?

Suicide bombings is just a technique that was started as far as I know by the Japanese, and guess what they resorted to this technique when they got desperate!

I take it the US documents that you like referencing have evidence that those locked up in 'gitmo' detest western justice and human rights ?

Z

if the worst ever came to the worst which army would you join ? in order to fight your great cause,

Mmm can you give me a selection to chose from :)

Z

I'll tell you what we remember. Muslims dancing in the street and handing out sweets after 911. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. He butchered his people and tried to have George Bush snr assassinated - an act of war if ever there was one. Terrorists have been present in Iraq for years - before and after 911. And we know Iran has been a sick repository of terrorism for 27 years - but time is running out on the evil men of Iran.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

In 1998, Paul Wolfowitz and his PNAC mates Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney wrote a report called "Rebuilding America's Defences" where they suggested that Iraq should be invaded and Saddam overthrown. That's 1998. They also suggested that America needed "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbour". In short, they were planning to attack Iraq from the moment that they first came into office. 9/11 was simply the perfect excuse for them to do so.

Remember when Colin Powell went to the UN and tried to pitch his case for a link between Iraq and Al Qaida? Not only was his information based on a ten year old forged document produced by Britain, but the only "evidence" that he could produce was that an Al Qaida operative had received treatment for an injury in Kurdistan. Only one problem - Kurdistan is an autonomous region, so therefore had nothing to do with Saddam.

Mmm can you give me a selection to chose from :)

Zeast or west seems to be the most popular at the moment,or as g w might put " them or us "

Jake,

Gladly its a free'ish country, and we are free to question each others views.

Hopefully we can do it in a civilised manner, without resorting to the usual name calling, jeering etc.

I see no name calling or jeering.

I never said or implied the act of suicide bombing was brave, probably desperate but certainly not cowardly.

If not cowardly then what?.... the only opposite is brave.... there is no half measure to outright murder unless the person responding can see some right in it.

To take innocent life is abhorrant period, be it in the name of religion or in the name of democracy, be it by a suicide bomber, or by the order of a president/prime minister.

So who sets the terrorist to his/her task.... at least the troops roll out onto a battlefield in a democracy. Suicide bombers do not come into the equation, they hide in the shadows and kill and maim the weak and infirm and the healthy all for religion. I have never heard of a Christian... jewish....protestant suicide bomber.

Cowards IMO are those who call for killing / war, but aren't willing to risk their lives in the 'great' cause.

Z

Anyone at war risks losing their lives.... especially the leaders as they make the biggest targets.

LordC,

Western islamic militants are the result of our govt giving people like Abu Hamza free reign to spread their BS.

Did you hear of any such groups in the UK before his arrival in 1996 ?

Suicide bombings is just a technique that was started as far as I know by the Japanese, and guess what they resorted to this technique when they got desperate!

I take it the US documents that you like referencing have evidence that those locked up in 'gitmo' detest western justice and human rights ?

Z

Well Zafar,

With regard to the first question, I would say that the Salman Rushdie affair provided home grown manifestations of 'Islamic militancy', although I will agree with you that successive British governments have been monumentally lax and incredibly short-sighted and stupid in allowing preachers of hate such as Hamza into the country (and indeed providing them and their families with financial support for years) - no disagreement with you there at all;

As for the comparison with the Japanese kamikazis, this is not very convincing. Firstly, the kamikazis directed themselves against specific military targets (i.e. warships), not against defenceless civilians. They also operated within the context of a declared war and were part of a regular military force. Yes, they were desparate and only engaged in such methods as a last resort. What were the welfare-cosseted 7/7 bombers desparate about? Nothing which could possibly justify the mass murder of innocent people;

As for the Gitmo detainees' appreciation for Western standards of justice and human rights - well, I will wager that many of them have discovered since their incarceration that these standard will eventually be their 'get out of jail' card and therefore they are likely to fully support them now for personal and pragmatic reasons, regardless of any views they may have held (or indeed still do hold) towards man made law.

east or west seems to be the most popular at the moment,or as g w might put " them or us "

Inwhich case neither. Just because GW says choose doesn't mean I have to.

Z

Well Zafar,

With regard to the first question, I would say that the Salman Rushdie affair provided home grown manifestations of 'Islamic militancy', although I will agree with you that successive British governments have been monumentally lax and incredibly short-sighted and stupid in allowing preachers of hate such as Hamza into the country (and indeed providing them and their families with financial support for years) - no disagreement with you there at all;

As for the comparison with the Japanese kamikazis, this is not very convincing. Firstly, the kamikazis directed themselves against specific military targets (i.e. warships), not against defenceless civilians. They also operated within the context of a declared war and were part of a regular military force. Yes, they were desparate and only engaged in such methods as a last resort. What were the welfare-cosseted 7/7 bombers desparate about? Nothing which could possibly justify the mass murder of innocent people;

As for the Gitmo detainees' appreciation for Western standards of justice and human rights - well, I will wager that many of them have discovered since their incarceration that these standard will eventually be their 'get out of jail' card and therefore they are likely to fully support them now for personal and pragmatic reasons, regardless of any views they may have held (or indeed still do hold) towards man made law.

LordC,

Its not even a question of letting them into the country. Even when there was clear evidence of their wrong doings and they were in the public 'limelight', they were released without charges. In 1999 when he was released from custody, his 'terrorism manual' (which by the way is a CIA handbook translated into Arabic) was returned to him by the police!

Insofar as the Rushdie affair, the Iranian Ayatollah placed a fatwa on Rushdie's head. Agree or disagree with his act, he was entitled to do so under the Iranian constitution. Ofcourse interms of international law, thats a different question.

In regards to the idea of suicide attacks, if I recollect Osama Bin Laden openly declared war against the US back in the late 1990's. Perhaps he should have taken your views onboard and got his followers to wear a 'standard' uniform ?

Tell me LordC, did you advocate a similar reponse to the members of the IRA ?
(i.e. lock them up on the say so of the security forces)

Z

Inwhich case neither. Just because GW says choose doesn't mean I have to.

Z

In a major war say, east v west.... you would have to choose, as The Govt. would call you up.... and as a conscientious objector you wouldn't be allowed to work.... would you expect to sit in the warmth with your feet up at the expense of the very people defending you and es-pout your views in the same freedom that these people would fight for your right to do so?

Inwhich case neither. Just because GW says choose doesn't mean I have to.

Z i can not believe some one with such staunch views took 1 hour and 16 minutes to come up with such a weak responce, i will reword the question for you, " where do your loyalties truly lay ?"

you clearly support the arabs yet you say "we" a lot as in "we british" so i was just wondering,if the unthinkable did happen and you had to choose,where would your loyalties lay ?

its just that some of your posts leave me confused,you seem to lean towards the terrorists bombing campaign , but at the same time you decry them.

maybe its me,but i do get suspicious,as i once read a quote that said " its better to have a hundred enemy banging on your door,than to have one inside your house " cant remember who said it but it keeps popping into my head, no rush for a reply,im away till sunday

So thats how you see it Depoix... 'the arabs' vs 'the british'????!!!!!

:loopy: I despair :(

So thats how you see it Depoix... 'the arabs' vs 'the british'????!!!!!

:loopy: I despair :(

I think depoix more sees it as how we live as cultures rather than us & them

So thats how you see it Depoix... 'the arabs' vs 'the british'????!!!!!

:loopy: I despair :(

Read ' The Ballad of East and West' by Rudyard Kipling. This should give you an insight on how difficult the situation is................

I think depoix more sees it as how we live as cultures rather than us & them

My thoughts exactly.

Sierra, we're wasting our time here, let's go home

Is that your catch phrase?You seem to use it an awfull lot......:rolleyes:


This argument that the "other side" couldnt stomach a "proper-fight" and cowardly use terrorist tactics is completely fatuous.Who could fight against the USA?
When people feel desperate-and whatever your feelings about the rights and wrongs of the actions of Al Qaeda et al,it cannot be denied that they feel desperate-they will use whatever means necessary to accomplish their aims.
In the same situation,would anyone-regardless of race,religion or creed-do any different?

In the same situation,would anyone-regardless of race,religion or creed-do any different?
Yes, there's no need to purposely kill innocents. Al-Qaeda are pure anti-West and terrorists.

Yes, there's no need to purposely kill innocents. Al-Qaeda are pure anti-West and terrorists.

So whats the difference between purposely killing civilians and attacking targets knowing civilians will die?Either way,its accepting that someone needs to pay the price for military/political aims to be achieved....

So whats the difference between purposely killing civilians and attacking targets knowing civilians will die?Either way,its accepting that someone needs to pay the price for military/political aims to be achieved....

This is a Jihad.... a holy war on the west in case you haven't noticed and innocents do die when military targets are taken out.... I fail to see how a number 7 bus is a military target and how it would be beneficial to take it out unless the true aim was to cause fear and panic amongst the innocent.

So whats the difference between purposely killing civilians and attacking targets knowing civilians will die?Either way,its accepting that someone needs to pay the price for military/political aims to be achieved....

A big difference IMO. Knowing you will kill ppl as a suicide bomber is just pure evil and hope the lot rot in hell. Casualties as part of a military attack as part of a war in seeking out the enemy is just that, casualties. It is normally thought in this scenario that more lives will be saved in the future as part of the attack. It may or will happen but i'm sure they'll do there very best to keep casulaties at nil. But war is such frequent word used today that its' hard to discuss or apply to each one. (if that makes sense??)

.....unless the true aim was to cause fear and panic amongst the innocent.

....or to cause resentment,hatred and ill-founded miss trust of an entire religion-and judging by some of the reactionary tripe spouted on this thread, I think we can safely say that its job done.

So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets-when we let hate and prejudice get the better of us.

....or to cause resentment,hatred and ill-founded miss trust of an entire religion-and judging by some of the reactionary tripe spouted on this thread, I think we can safely say that its job done.

So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets-when we let hate and prejudice get the better of us.

I don't think anyone was discussing an entire religion here... just an individuals answers to questions posed.... simple. Oh! and terrorists.

civilians will never become "legitimate" targets just unfortunate casualties of war.... I strongly suggest you read your own post again.

And I guess you could say I am prejudice.... against terrorism which seems to think that civilians "are" legitimate targets.

I don't think anyone was discussing an entire religion here... just an individuals answers to questions posed.... simple. Oh! and terrorists.

ciivilians will never become "legitimate" targets just unfortunate casualties of war.... I strongly suggest you read your own post again.

And I guess you could say I am prejudice.... against terrorism.

And I would suggest you read back throught some previous posts-its quite clear that many people on here feel this is a war between Islam and the west,even,as has been suggested in recent posts,east versus west.

I would agree that the July 7th attacks were of no military value-but 9/11 is a different story......

I would agree that the July 7th attacks were of no military value-but 9/11 is a different story......

By that statement you have justified the actions of Bush and Blair....

By that statement you have justified the actions of Bush and Blair....

Yeah sorry,I suppose I should have qualified that statement..

What I meant about 9/11 was that Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,using the west's definition of military targets.

Yeah sorry,I suppose I should have qualified that statement..

What I meant about 9/11 was that Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,using the west's definition of military targets.

9/11 is the equivalent to Pearl Harbour to the Americans. Whatever you or Zafar say to try and justify the Pearl Harbour attack, and legitimise the attack by one Nation upon another, without warning, you should expect expect the victim nation to respond, no holds barred.

Do the military targets include the civilian airliners full of men, women, and children going about their daily lives, maybe enjoying a trip to see grandma, or a honeymoon in Hawaii. What kind of military target was the Trade Center? I believe there were many Britons in there as well. Were they also warmongers. You and your MG should go to la la land.
We gave the arabs Attercliffe. What more do they want.

Do the military targets include the civilian airliners full of men, women, and children going about their daily lives, maybe enjoying a trip to see grandma, or a honeymoon in Hawaii. What kind of military target was the Trade Center? I believe there were many Britons in there as well. Were they also warmongers. You and your MG should go to la la land.
We gave the arabs Attercliffe. What more do they want.

That's easy to answer, THE WORLD in chains, as they are

9/11 is the equivalent to Pearl Harbour to the Americans. Whatever you or Zafar say to try and justify the Pearl Harbour attack, and legitimise the attack by one Nation upon another, without warning, you should expect expect the victim nation to respond, no holds barred.

Firstly,I dont speak for Zafar,nor he for me..he seems perfectly capable of speaking for himself as far as I can see.
Secondly,without wanting to get padantic and point out that Al Qaeda are not a nation,the whole question of wether the attack was pre warned is still open to debate-Bin Laden had,after all,already declared war on the US by the time of 9/11.And of course to expect the US not to retaliate would have been naive-the question is,did they respond correctly?

Yeah sorry,I suppose I should have qualified that statement..

What I meant about 9/11 was that Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,using the west's definition of military targets.
The World Trade Center towers aren't my idea of a military target. And air hostesses aren't exactly the SAS. At the end of the day, we are dealing with murderous fanatics driven by the call to wage jihad and slaughter infidels as stated in hundereds of Koranic verses and sayings of Mohammed (hadiths). At the end of the day, it isn't a small percentage of Muslims worldwide who want to bring down the West and subjugate it to Sharia law, as the complacent PC soothsayers would like us to believe, because this sort of delusion comforts them. Far from it, I reckon it is at least 40-60% of Muslims worldwide who would like to see Western civilization in ruins and Westerners subjugated by Sharia.

Do the military targets include the civilian airliners full of men, women, and children going about their daily lives, maybe enjoying a trip to see grandma, or a honeymoon in Hawaii. What kind of military target was the Trade Center? I believe there were many Britons in there as well. Were they also warmongers. You and your MG should go to la la land.
We gave the arabs Attercliffe. What more do they want.

Maybe I will:) La La land seams quite nice,at the mo;)

If the US(for example-I could also have used the UK,France etc.) was to attack a nation-what would be the first targets attacked?

1/Heads of government(the white house-planned,but never succesfully attacked)
2/Military intelligence(the Pentagon)
3/The "enemy's" centre of finance and trade (twin towers)

Firstly,I dont speak for Zafar,nor he for me..he seems perfectly capable of speaking for himself as far as I can see.
Secondly,without wanting to get padantic and point out that Al Qaeda are not a nation,the whole question of wether the attack was pre warned is still open to debate-Bin Laden had,after all,already declared war on the US by the time of 9/11.And of course to expect the US not to retaliate would have been naive-the question is,did they respond correctly?

Al Quaeda may not be a Nation, but operated for several years within the boundaries of a nation, Afghanistan, with the complicity of the Afghan Regime run by the Taliban, an extreme Muslim group promoting Sharia Law on the willing and the unwilling.

Al Quaeda was already responsible for the attack on the American ship USS Cole, with US deaths resulting from that attack.

Al Quaeda has been busy throughout the Middle East fomenting disruption to the followers of peaceful Islam. It is at its busiest just now in Iraq, to the detriment of Muslims and Secular Iraqis...thousands who have perished at their hands daily...probably now exceeding the deaths of Muslims at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Don't blame the coalition in Iraq........they don't kill Iraqis willy nilly. Without these scum in Iraq, many lives would have been preserved within the borders of that unfortunate country.

It blows one's brains to think that after one of the most repressive Governments that poor country has ever suffered, their suffering is prolonged by scum who have no business there but to disrupt the well-being and re-building of their nation by well-wishing allies, in the form of the Coalition countries.

Al Quaeda may not be a Nation, but operated for several years within the boundaries of a nation, Afghanistan, with the complicity of the Afghan Regime run by the Taliban, an extreme Muslim group promoting Sharia Law on the willing and the unwilling.

Al Quaeda was already responsible for the attack on the American ship USS Cole, with US deaths resulting from that attack.

Al Quaeda has been busy throughout the Middle East fomenting disruption to the followers of peaceful Islam. It is at its busiest just now in Iraq, to the detriment of Muslims and Secular Iraqis...thousands who have perished at their hands daily...probably now exceeding the deaths of Muslims at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Don't blame the coalition in Iraq........they don't kill Iraqis willy nilly. Without these scum in Iraq, many lives would have been preserved within the borders of that unfortunate country.

It blows one's brains to think that after one of the most repressive Governments that poor country has ever suffered, their suffering is prolonged by scum who have no business there but to disrupt the well-being and re-building of their nation by well-wishing allies, in the form of the Coalition countries.

But then surely shoeshine,if your comparing Al Qaeda to a nation,then anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW?

But then surely shoeshine,if your comparing Al Qaeda to a nation,then anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW?

If I ruled the World......NO

And I would suggest you read back throught some previous posts-its quite clear that many people on here feel this is a war between Islam and the west,even,as has been suggested in recent posts,east versus west.

I would agree that the July 7th attacks were of no military value-but 9/11 is a different story......

You are either very naieve or really dont have a clue what you are talking about.... you seem hell bent on securing "rights" for those who wish you harm.

May I ask if you are a Muslim?

You agree 7/7 was of no military value.... what value did it serve then?

You say that 9/11 is a different story.... how different? did thousands of innocent people not lose thier lives to a handful of terrorists? and is it not right for America to respond accordingly? I really wish you would explain your point as you are looking very suspect me.

You are either very naieve or really dont have a clue what you are talking about.... you seem hell bent on securing "rights" for those who wish you harm.

May I ask if you are Muslim?

You agree 7/7 was of no military value.... what value did it serve then?

You say that 9/11 is a different story.... how different? did thousands of innocent people not lose thir lives to a handful of terrorists? and is it not right for America to respond accordingly? I really wish you would explain your point as you are looking very suspect me.

I am possibly naive-of that I would agree

No,im not a muslim-your welcome to ask though:)

The attack on the 7th July(sorry,cant call it 7/7).I suppose you would have to say that the prime role of the attacks was to stir up anti-Muslim feeling amongst the majority population-therefore making it easier to justify the Jihad against the west.

As for 9/11 please see my previous post.I amNOT justifying the 9/11 attacks-infact,if im honest,the views i'm expressing came second hand from a US general(sorry,cant remember his name) said that"if I was to attack a modern power,I would have gone about it the same way as the 9/11 attackers"

What im trying to say is that war-of any description-cannot be expained in logical terms-it comes down to belief.We,in the west,believe we are correct.Wether we are not is for history to judge...

I am possibly naive-of that I would agree

No,im not a muslim-your welcome to ask though:)

The attack on the 7th July(sorry,cant call it 7/7).I suppose you would have to say that the prime role of the attacks was to stir up anti-Muslim feeling amongst the majority population-therefore making it easier to justify the Jihad against the west.

The"prime role" in that case didn't work in America or in the UK.... even when some hard core fanatics took to the streets in London with threats to kill.... that didn't work because we are civilized and realise it is the few and not the many. And the many Muslims in this Country would agree.

As for 9/11 please see my previous post.I amNOT justifying the 9/11 attacks-infact,if im honest,the views i'm expressing came second hand from a US general(sorry,cant remember his name) said that"if I was to attack a modern power,I would have gone about it the same way as the 9/11 attackers"

Find out who he is as I would dearly love to know and I suspect that you do not really agree anyway.... what you speak should be from your own mind and your own heart.... there is no argument for killing innocent people going about their daily lives.


What im trying to say is that war-of any description-cannot be expained in logical terms-it comes down to belief.We,in the west,believe we are correct.Wether we are not is for history to judge...

War is not meant to be logical, it comes around when communication between two or more parties breaks down to the extent that all reason flies out of the window. War itself is most illogical and terrorism is even more so.... this is not about defeating a religion, only the evil which uses a religion as a mask.

The"prime role" in that case didn't work in America or in the UK.... even when some hard core fanatics took to the streets in London with threats to kill.... that didn't work because we are civilized and realise it is the few and not the many. And the many Muslims in this Country would agree.

I would suggest that,although on the whole it didnt succeed,when you see threads like this it would be hard to disagree-there are a lot of people in "SF World" who now feel that that the war is one between Islam and the west..

Find out who he is as I would dearly love to know and I suspect that you do not really agree anyway.... what you speak should be from your own mind and your own heart.... there is no argument for killing innocent people going about their daily lives.

I will attempt to find out who he is-though,im the first to admit it may be difficult to find out his actual name.If I can find his name though,it would be hard to disagree wit his sentiments..thought that is not an approvel of what happened on 9/11.I dont think that is what he,or I,am saying.

War is not meant to be logical, it comes around when communication between two or more parties breaks down to the extent that all reason flies out of the window. War itself is most illogical and terrorism is even more so.... this is not about defeating a religion, only the evil which uses a religion as a mask.

And on that,you and I would agree.But some people,on this very thread have tried,and failed,to prove that they hold the moral high ground.There are no absolutes in war-only winners and losers...

I would suggest that,although on the whole it didnt succeed,when you see threads like this it would be hard to disagree-there are a lot of people in "SF World" who now feel that that the war is one between Islam and the west..

So you need to step out of the "Box" and look in impartially and give your answers based on truth and fact.... hitting out only puts you in the same corner as the one you can probably give a reasonable and rational debate to.

Some people are bigots.... but you will never change them all.



I will attempt to find out who he is-though,im the first to admit it may be difficult to find out his actual name.If I can find his name though,it would be hard to disagree wit his sentiments..thought that is not an approvel of what happened on 9/11.I dont think that is what he,or I,am saying.

I think what you are saying is from the mind of a terrorist this soft target makes perfect sense.... kill a load of people in one go and hit em in the pocket.... would you agree it doesn't make it right though.... can you imagine the furor if we retaliated in such a way?



And on that,you and I would agree.But some people,on this very thread have tried,and failed,to prove that they hold the moral high ground.There are no absolutes in war-only winners and losers...

No one holds the moral high ground as long as there are people with different views and are able to express them.

Just blame it on Lady Macbeth and leave it at that.

Just blame it on Lady Macbeth and leave it at that.

Zafar, the US estimates for losses in a mainland Japan invasion were as Firecracker said, massive, and would mainly have been Japanese, certainly over a million. The Japanese still had a large army and had ‘conscripted several million home-guard types, which meant old men and women armed with garden implements. That’s why they chose to use the devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’d call the decision to do so the bravest and most morally justified one of the whole war.

A lot of your responses suggest that you are the sort of person whose loyalty is to the faith you brought with you from your parent nation, not the nation you now live in. Religion corrupts and has no place in modern society – few people believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, so why oh why do allegedly intelligent people believe there’s a god? Admitting to adhere to a religion is like holding up a placard saying ‘I’m a twit’.

Teafan said:

“Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this.

What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people".”

For goodness sake, what do you think that somebody at a terrorist training camp, or fighting around Tora Bora, was doing there? Picnicking? Collecting butterflies? Got off at the wrong tube station perhaps? The CIA didn’t just go round Attercliffe with snatch wagons bagging corner shop owners, they captured unlawful combatants in an area where there were only two types of people – soldiers on our side, and terrorist scum. So relax in the knowledge that the people in Guantanamo should be there.

Annoni_Mouse. “911 was Al Qaeda using Western military doctrine against the West” – please explain. I’ve spent quite a while studying Western military doctrine, and quite a lot of time employing it – that’s my job, and I’m very happy to be a part of the machine that planned Afghanistan and Iraq, and I’ve been on the ground in both. Maybe my 14 year military career hasn’t prepared me to understand the military doctrine that I apply for a living as well as you understand it.

I think you need to read a little more, as for your claim about targets:

1/Heads of government(the white house-planned,but never succesfully attacked) Heads of state are not legitimate military targets. Military leaders are, but not the politicians. Very, very wrong there.
2/Military intelligence(the Pentagon) Military intelligence – yes, that’s right. But what makes you think that’s what the Pentagon does? It’s the central command headquarters, not the home of the intelligence agencies. Trust me they are two very different things, unless you don’t understand the difference between intelligence and command. I’ve been down many a corridor in the Pentagon. Nice building – much bigger in the flesh than it looks on tv.
3/The "enemy's" centre of finance and trade (twin towers) No, we don’t bomb trade centres, because that offers no military advantage. Communications routes and systems, road, rail, air and power infrastructure, anything military, maybe key production facilities. But finance and trade? Silly boy.

Zafar and Annoni_Mouse might like to hand over their UK passports (if they have them), pack their bags and head off on a permanent holiday to Iran where they can share opinions with the local hierarchy to their hearts’ content.

Annoni_Mouse. “911 was Al Qaeda using Western military doctrine against the West” – please explain. I’ve spent quite a while studying Western military doctrine, and quite a lot of time employing it – that’s my job, and I’m very happy to be a part of the machine that planned Afghanistan and Iraq, and I’ve been on the ground in both. Maybe my 14 year military career hasn’t prepared me to understand the military doctrine that I apply for a living as well as you understand it.

I think you need to read a little more, as for your claim about targets:

1/Heads of government(the white house-planned,but never succesfully attacked) Heads of state are not legitimate military targets. Military leaders are, but not the politicians. Very, very wrong there.
2/Military intelligence(the Pentagon) Military intelligence – yes, that’s right. But what makes you think that’s what the Pentagon does? It’s the central command headquarters, not the home of the intelligence agencies. Trust me they are two very different things, unless you don’t understand the difference between intelligence and command. I’ve been down many a corridor in the Pentagon. Nice building – much bigger in the flesh than it looks on tv.
3/The "enemy's" centre of finance and trade (twin towers) No, we don’t bomb trade centres, because that offers no military advantage. Communications routes and systems, road, rail, air and power infrastructure, anything military, maybe key production facilities. But finance and trade? Silly boy.

Zafar and Annoni_Mouse might like to hand over their UK passports (if they have them), pack their bags and head off on a permanent holiday to Iran where they can share opinions with the local hierarchy to their hearts’ content.

You know,I really cant be bothered to go through this again-I expressed an opinion on the methods used in 9/11,not the rights and wrongs behind it-and I stand by every post ive made,even if I havn't always expressed my thoughts as well as I might have.
As for your last paragraph-what nonsense.If thats the best you can come up with when someone disagree's with your view of the world,I would quit now..

Is that your catch phrase?You seem to use it an awfull lot......:rolleyes:


This argument that the "other side" couldnt stomach a "proper-fight" and cowardly use terrorist tactics is completely fatuous.Who could fight against the USA?
When people feel desperate-and whatever your feelings about the rights and wrongs of the actions of Al Qaeda et al,it cannot be denied that they feel desperate-they will use whatever means necessary to accomplish their aims.
In the same situation,would anyone-regardless of race,religion or creed-do any different?
Grow up Annoni. If the Arabs and Muslims have got problems, those problems are of their own making. They choose to be 1,000 years behind the West. Can you imagine them leading civilization when 80% of Saudis who go to university do Islamic Studies. They shun the modern world and modernity, and because we in the West have a modern society, they think we should be murdered back into the Stone Age. Islam is dysfunctional. It is backward. It is violent and intolerant. 1,400 years of history bear testimony to this. And lets look at what Winston Churchill said about Islam in 1899:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

And he also said this:

“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.”

After seeing the heinous atrocities carried out over the last 40 years in general, and the last eight in particular, was he wrong?

Grow up Annoni. If the Arabs anbd Muslims have got problems, those problems are of their own making. They choose to be 1,000 years behind the West. Can you imagine them leading civilization when 80% of Saudis who go to university do Islamic Studies. They shun the modern world and modernity, and because we in the West have a modern society, they think we should be murdered back into the Stone Age. Islam is dysfunctional. It is backward. It is violent and intolerant. 1,400 years of history bear testimony to this. And lets look at what Winston Churchill said about Islam in 1899:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

And he also said this:

“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.”

After seeing the heinous atrocities carried out over the last 40 years in general, and the last eight in particular, was he wrong?

Look,firecraker,you and I will never agree on this.I will not change your mind nor you mine.So what exactly do you want me to say?

Look,firecraker,you and I will never agree on this.I will not change your mind nor you mine.So what exactly do you want me to say?
Tell me Annoni - whose side are you on. Ours, or the Islamic terrorists?

Tell me Annoni - whose side are you on. Ours, or the Islamic terrorists?

Im not even going to dignify that with an answer.

Its interesting though that im being asked to chose sides-the last time I was accused on SF,I was told that I was a pro-Isreali zionist because I pointed out some historical facts about the Sinai campaign in '56.Funny how things change,aint it?:loopy:

Im not even going to dignify that with an answer.

Its interesting though that im being asked to chose sides-the last time I was accused on SF,I was told that I was a pro-Isreali zionist because I pointed out some historical facts about the Sinai campaign in '56.Funny how things change,aint it?:loopy:
Maybe thats because you dare not answer it. Still, we can come to our conclusions based on your other postings.

Maybe thats because you dare not answer it. Still, we can come to our conclusions based on your other postings.

Well,I think that you and one or two others on here have already made there minds up about me-without knowing the first thing about me or my views.

I still refuse to answer your question because its childish and infantile.What I will say however,is that if either you,bartfarst or anyone else for that matter can point to a single post on here where I have expressed support for terrorist actions,I will take Bartfarst up on his suggestion and move to Iran.I understand the weather is quite nice in Tehran this time of year.....

Well,I think that you and one or two others on here have already made there minds up about me-without knowing the first thing about me or my views.

I still refuse to answer your question because its childish and infantile.What I will say however,is that if either you,bartfarst or anyone else for that matter can point to a single post on here where I have expressed support for terrorist actions,I will take Bartfarst up on his suggestion and move to Iran.I understand the weather is quite nice in Tehran this time of year.....

Let's try these:

"So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets"

"Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,"

"anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW"


Can we help you pack?

Let's try these:

"So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets"

"Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,"

"anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW"


Can we help you pack?

You dissapoint me Bartfarst,you took much longer than I thought to reply:rolleyes:

And heres what I actually said(in context):-


So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets-when we let hate and prejudice get the better of us.


What I meant about 9/11 was that Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,using the west's definition of military targets.

I believe Ive already explained myself on this point-after pointing out what I said WAS NOT approval of the actions taken that day.I guess you just dont want to listen.Far easier to judge,isnt it?

But then surely shoeshine,if your comparing Al Qaeda to a nation,then anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW?

You know,Bart,with all this alteration of the facts to suit your argument,are you sure you're not Alaistair Campbell in disguise?....

So thanks for your offer of help in packing,but I believe my suitcase will remain where it is,unpacked.:thumbsup:

Let's try these:

"So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets"

"Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,"

"anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW"


Can we help you pack?
Annoni-mouse - condemned by his own postings on this thread. There's a fatal flaw in his argument - the US wasn't at war with any Islamic country in 2001, nor was it at war with any Islamic country in 1993 when terrorists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center. But Muslim terrorists have been murdering innocent Americans since 1970 - like 241 US peacekeepers murdered by suicide bombers in Beirut in 1983, or that disabled American Jew Klinghoffer murdered by Palestinian terrorist scumbags on the Achille Lauro in 1985, and 270 PANAM airline passengers murdered by Gaddafi in 1988 - of course the US should have invaded Libya and executed Gaddafi on the spot for that heinous crime.

If I ruled the World......NO

Don't quote me out of context either, please....

of course the US should have invaded Libya and executed Gaddafi on the spot for that heinous crime.

but then....


Heads of state are not legitimate military targets. Military leaders are, but not the politicians. Very, very wrong there.


So then by your friend Bartfarst argument,you are a terrorist for supporting the removal of the leader of a nation.....

firecracker - condemned by his own postings on this thread.:wave:

Don't quote me out of context either, please....

I wasnt quoting you at all-I was quoting my own reply to you....

But then surely shoeshine,if your comparing Al Qaeda to a nation,then anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW?

I repeat, my answer to that comment was "If I ruled the World No

I repeat again, please don't quote me out of context......Thanks

but then....



So then by your friend Bartfarst argument,you are a terrorist for supporting the removal of the leader of a nation.....

firecracker - condemned by his own postings on this thread.:wave:
Not condemned by my postings. The Lockerbie bombing was an unprovoked act of war against innocent US citizens by Gaddafi, and as such, Gaddafi deserved to be removed and executed for his act of mass murder. But then, judging by your postings, you're either a terrorist supporter, or you're a loony liberal leftie PC nutjob who believes we shouldn't take action against Islamic nutjobs and the states who harbour them, regardless of what they do. What is it to be?

Not condemned by my postings. The Lockerbie bombing was an unprovoked act of war against innocent US citizens by Gaddafi, and as such, Gaddafi deserved to be removed and executed for his act of mass murder. But then, judging by your postings, you're either a terrorist supporter, or you're a loony liberal leftie PC nutjob who believes we shouldn't take action against Islamic nutjobs and the states who harbour them, regardless of what they do. What is it to be?

Why should I answer-your having so much fun making your own mind up-here's a suggestion-Why dont you tell me which of these two criteria you think I fill?

PS,im still waiting to hear how I support terrorists:huh:

Let's try these:

"So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets"

"Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,"

"anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW"


Can we help you pack?
And here's an interesting article by Brigitte Gabriel: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21364

I repeat, my answer to that comment was "If I ruled the World No

I repeat again, please don't quote me out of context......Thanks

OK,we get the message-if you ruled the world no.Happy now?:)

OK,we get the message-if you ruled the world no.Happy now?:)

I would be but the job is filled by Dubya.........still, no harm in being ambitious is there?...Mind you I think Blair has his eyes on the job...God help us all if that happens.......:D

I would be but the job is filled by Dubya.........still, no harm in being ambitious is there?...Mind you I think Blair has his eyes on the job...God help us all if that happens.......:D

Indeed,ambition is a fine thing.I think there's as much chance of you getting the job as Mr Blair,mind you....;)

Why should I answer-your having so much fun making your own mind up-here's a suggestion-Why dont you tell me which of these two criteria you think I fill?

PS,im still waiting to hear how I support terrorists:huh:

I reeckon the quotes below make the case:

"So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets"

"Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,"

"anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW"

For starters, the US wasn't at war with anyone on the day of 911. The WTC wasn't a military target, and you're telling us Al Qaeda terrorists should be treated like POWs and afforded rights. You're on their side beyond all reasonable doubt, but that is in common with lefties all over the world - they side with all manner of evil, and rabid Islamists are the latest evil they seek common cause with.

Indeed,ambition is a fine thing.I think there's as much chance of you getting the job as Mr Blair,mind you....;)

Brains mean nothing when it comes to World Leader Selection..:thumbsup:

I reeckon the quotes below make the case:

So yes,sometimes civilians do become legitimate targets"

"Al Qaeda were using western military doctrine aginst the west.When you look at the targets attacked that day,all were legitimate targets,"

"anyone who is arrested as an Al Qaeda supporter/terrorist call it what you will,is a soldier and should be afforded the same rights as a POW"

For starters, the US wasn't at war with anyone on the day of 911. The WTC wasn't a military target, and you're telling us Al Qaeda terrorists should be treated like POWs and afforded rights. You're on their side beyond all reasonable doubt, but that is in common with lefties all over the world - they side with all manner of evil, and rabid Islamists are the latest evil they seek common cause with.

Sorry are you really that dense?Look up about,oh thirteen posts and youll see my response to those "miss"-quotes.They were poor when when Bartfarst first aired 'em,they havnt improved with you just regurgetating them...:rolleyes:

Brains mean nothing when it comes to World Leader Selection..:thumbsup:

Actually,and this may come as something as a suprise to my detractors on here,I dont buy into the whole "George Dubya is an idiot" concept.

After meeting him,prior to the second Gulf War,Menzies Campbell,one of the few politicians I genuinely admire and respect,said that Mr Bush was a very clever man-not the imbecile he was portrayed as in the European press.He concluded that Mr Bush hadnt convinced him of the merit in invading Iraq,but he was impressed by Bush's intellect.

If that was good enough for Menzies Campbell,then it was good enough for me:thumbsup:

Actually,and this may come as something as a suprise to my detractors on here,I dont buy into the whole "George Dubya is an idiot" concept.

After meeting him,prior to the second Gulf War,Menzies Campbell,one of the few politicians I genuinely admire and respect,said that Mr Bush was a very clever man-not the imbecile he was portrayed as in the European press.He concluded that Mr Bush hadnt convinced him of the merit in invading Iraq,but he was impressed by Bush's intellect.

If that was good enough for Menzies Campbell,then it was good enough for me:thumbsup:

Well, I'll say this for Campbell.....he has a Scottish name, and wears a tie.

He should do well running an English Parliament, if we are daft enough to let him.

Mind you, our choices for sensible people in Westminster are severely restricted...:D

Sorry are you really that dense?Look up about,oh thirteen posts and youll see my response to those "miss"-quotes.They were poor when when Bartfarst first aired 'em,they havnt improved with you just regurgetating them...:rolleyes:
Still, you've proved to all that you're a dense Westerner-hating troll. You've done nothing to disprove the fact that you're on the other side, making up excuses for all sorts of terrorism. Anyway, when are you catching that flight to Karachi or Tehran?

Well, I'll say this for Campbell.....he has a Scottish name, and wears a tie.

He should do well running an English Parliament, if we are daft enough to let him.

Mind you, our choices for sensible people in Westminster are severely restricted...:D

I doubt he'll ever get the chance,given the political system we have in place-but he strikes me,and I may be wrong 'cos you can never really tell a persons character based on their public persona-as being a politician who believes in what he says-in the mold of Tony Benn or Enoch Powell..

Well, I'll say this for Campbell.....he has a Scottish name, and wears a tie.

He should do well running an English Parliament, if we are daft enough to let him.

Mind you, our choices for sensible people in Westminster are severely restricted...:D

Don't they also say that you have to have a modicum of intelligence in the first place to be qualified to assess another's. :thumbsup:

Still, you've proved to all that you're a dense Westerner-hating troll. You've done nothing to disprove the fact that you're on the other side, making up excuses for all sorts of terrorism. Anyway, when are you catching that flight to Karachi or Tehran?

8.30,Manchester airport,terminal 1.You can come and wave me off if you like-just promise me you' ll not get all mushy,I hate goodbyes..:sad:

I've just read through Annoni-mouse's inputs and perhaps we've been unfair - I wouldn’t go as far as to say he's sat on the fence, but he's not been waving a burning Union Flag either (and yes, I did cut'n'paste his comments selectively a few posts ago).

However, Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
“Heads of state are not legitimate military targets. Military leaders are, but not the politicians. Very, very wrong there.

By Annoni: So then by your friend Bartfarst argument, you are a terrorist for supporting the removal of the leader of a nation..... “


No, I didn't say that. Legitimising military targets is very complex on issues like that. What happens in practice is that at 4-star general level, the planning is done with constant legal consultation, and the generals don't say 'do it' until the lawyers tell them they can. There is a grey area when the nation's political leader, directly and without delegating authority, is also the leader of their military and personally controls and directs military input. Hitler was a good example, as was Saddam Hussein.

Annoni is also right about George Bush – anybody who thinks that a slow southern drawls means dim is missing the point, I’ve come across some very, very clever members of the US military whose slow southern accents make Bush sound sharp, but like him they are clever men – or wouldn’t be where they are.

So thats how you see it Depoix... 'the arabs' vs 'the british'????!!!!!

:loopy: I despair :(no, thats not how i see it at all, i asked a simple enough question, who would zafar support if it came to an all out war

i can agree with a few of his posts on israel v palastine,but not his views on tactics as used by the terrorists, now ,what is it you find hard to understand ?

no, thats not how i see it at all, i asked a simple enough question, who would zafar support if it came to an all out war

i can agree with a few of his posts on israel v palastine,but not his views on tactics as used by the terrorists, now ,what is it you find hard to understand ?
Perhaps the following link should give us an insight as to the Islamic attitude to peace treaties, and as to why there never will be peace between Muslim and Infidel. It is a Muslim scholars perspective on the peace treaty: http://web.archive.org/web/20011113234006/www.islaam.com/articles/treaty.htm

heres another aspect of why i would have liked to know which flag zafar would have fought under .....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1634517.stm

now, as there are many muslems living in britain,claiming british status i was wondering ,why so few are prepared to join the british armed forces to defend and protect britain against her enemies,hence the question,which army would you fight for ?suppose conscription was called for, would the people who pull down the british policies choose to return from whence they came ? or would they organize another march in support of their adopted homeland, as for my link, it suggests that the muslims should back their adopted country,they like zafa who are quick to shout out the virtues of their religion often miss out the small bits like this.....i despair ? i do not, i hope.....

heres another aspect of why i would have liked to know which flag zafar would have fought under .....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1634517.stm

now, as there are many muslems living in britain,claiming british status i was wondering ,why so few are prepared to join the british armed forces to defend and protect britain against her enemies,hence the question,which army would you fight for ?suppose conscription was called for, would the people who pull down the british policies choose to return from whence they came ? or would they organize another march in support of their adopted homeland, as for my link, it suggests that the muslims should back their adopted country,they like zafa who are quick to shout out the virtues of their religion often miss out the small bits like this.....i despair ? i do not, i hope.....

Yes I'd also like to know the answer to that as well.

LordC,

An interesting article in the observer re 'gitmo' and inparticular contains some telling claims from the US administration in the recent past about some of the prisoners.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1717845,00.html

Z

heres another aspect of why i would have liked to know which flag zafar would have fought under .....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1634517.stm

now, as there are many muslems living in britain,claiming british status i was wondering ,why so few are prepared to join the british armed forces to defend and protect britain against her enemies,hence the question,which army would you fight for ?suppose conscription was called for, would the people who pull down the british policies choose to return from whence they came ? or would they organize another march in support of their adopted homeland, as for my link, it suggests that the muslims should back their adopted country,they like zafa who are quick to shout out the virtues of their religion often miss out the small bits like this.....i despair ? i do not, i hope.....

If you actually read the link, its a no brainer. It would be 'unislamic' for me as a British Citizen to go abroad and attack British troops!

(In my younger and more nieve days I nearly jointed the TA's, under the misunderstanding that the TA's are the last line of defence for Britain.
Lucky I didn't as I would have been expected to visit Iraq!)

If someone invaded these shores, then yes ofcourse I'd defend my home.

Z

Yes I'd also like to know the answer to that as well.

You have my answer, now I'll ask you the same answer that your favourite journalist Melanie Phillips was asked on Question Time and one which she declined to answer.

In the scenario of a War between Britain and Israel, who would YOU be backing ?

Z

Zafar, the US estimates for losses in a mainland Japan invasion were as Firecracker said, massive, and would mainly have been Japanese, certainly over a million. The Japanese still had a large army and had ‘conscripted several million home-guard types, which meant old men and women armed with garden implements. That’s why they chose to use the devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’d call the decision to do so the bravest and most morally justified one of the whole war.

A lot of your responses suggest that you are the sort of person whose loyalty is to the faith you brought with you from your parent nation, not the nation you now live in. Religion corrupts and has no place in modern society – few people believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, so why oh why do allegedly intelligent people believe there’s a god? Admitting to adhere to a religion is like holding up a placard saying ‘I’m a twit’.

Teafan said:

“Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this.

What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people". What people are saying is "prove to us that the people in Guantanamo are these people".”

For goodness sake, what do you think that somebody at a terrorist training camp, or fighting around Tora Bora, was doing there? Picnicking? Collecting butterflies? Got off at the wrong tube station perhaps? The CIA didn’t just go round Attercliffe with snatch wagons bagging corner shop owners, they captured unlawful combatants in an area where there were only two types of people – soldiers on our side, and terrorist scum. So relax in the knowledge that the people in Guantanamo should be there.

Annoni_Mouse. “911 was Al Qaeda using Western military doctrine against the West” – please explain. I’ve spent quite a while studying Western military doctrine, and quite a lot of time employing it – that’s my job, and I’m very happy to be a part of the machine that planned Afghanistan and Iraq, and I’ve been on the ground in both. Maybe my 14 year military career hasn’t prepared me to understand the military doctrine that I apply for a living as well as you understand it.

I think you need to read a little more, as for your claim about targets:

1/Heads of government(the white house-planned,but never succesfully attacked) Heads of state are not legitimate military targets. Military leaders are, but not the politicians. Very, very wrong there.
2/Military intelligence(the Pentagon) Military intelligence – yes, that’s right. But what makes you think that’s what the Pentagon does? It’s the central command headquarters, not the home of the intelligence agencies. Trust me they are two very different things, unless you don’t understand the difference between intelligence and command. I’ve been down many a corridor in the Pentagon. Nice building – much bigger in the flesh than it looks on tv.
3/The "enemy's" centre of finance and trade (twin towers) No, we don’t bomb trade centres, because that offers no military advantage. Communications routes and systems, road, rail, air and power infrastructure, anything military, maybe key production facilities. But finance and trade? Silly boy.

Zafar and Annoni_Mouse might like to hand over their UK passports (if they have them), pack their bags and head off on a permanent holiday to Iran where they can share opinions with the local hierarchy to their hearts’ content.

The US was worried about its forces, not the civilians of Japan as was demonstrated in Europe and in Japan. As for your comment about the killing of 200,000 innocent civilians being the bravest and morally justified in the war, what can I say other than marketeers around the world must love you!

In all fairness the Japanese and the Nazi Govt's also cared little about civilian populations, but I'm not all teary eyed about patriatism the way you appear to be.

You seem to have selective amnesia vis a vi the 'integrity' and 'honour' of our Govt and esp the US Govt else you wouldn't make absurd statements detached from reality such as 'we wouldn't attack this and that.'

Do you actually remember the bombing of the television station in Serbia ?

'We' will attack anything which has a remote opportunity of being utilised by our foes. Targets such as the Commercial centres, intelligence services would be at the top of our lists.

Your argument about the pentagon not being a legitimate target in war is sureal to say the least....The command structures of a enemy are amongst THE very first targets that should be taken out.

The US has been practicing low intesity warfare for decades. Killing a 100,000 people over x number of years as oppossed to a single attack is the more 'efficient' solution that the US has practised in the South America's.

Your belief that the economic infrastructure is not a military target kind of highlights your reliance, indeed comfort in consuming official govt spin!


Z

If you actually read the link, its a no brainer. It would be 'unislamic' for me as a British Citizen to go abroad and attack British troops!

(In my younger and more nieve days I nearly jointed the TA's, under the misunderstanding that the TA's are the last line of defence for Britain.
Lucky I didn't as I would have been expected to visit Iraq!)

If someone invaded these shores, then yes ofcourse I'd defend my home.

Z

Even if the attackers were muslim or is it more likely you stand back and watch the rest of us as you would be safe anyway.

You have my answer, now I'll ask you the same answer that your favourite journalist Melanie Phillips was asked on Question Time and one which she declined to answer.

In the scenario of a War between Britain and Israel, who would YOU be backing ?

Z


I am British born and bred. :D

You have my answer, now I'll ask you the same answer that your favourite journalist Melanie Phillips was asked on Question Time and one which she declined to answer.

In the scenario of a War between Britain and Israel, who would YOU be backing ?

Z

I'll answer.... I would back Britain and fight for them against the Jews.... there! that wasn't too hard was it?

Zafar: "Your argument about the pentagon not being a legitimate target in war is sureal to say the least....The command structures of a enemy are amongst THE very first targets that should be taken out.

The US has been practicing low intesity warfare for decades. Killing a 100,000 people over x number of years as oppossed to a single attack is the more 'efficient' solution that the US has practised in the South America's.

Your belief that the economic infrastructure is not a military target kind of highlights your reliance, indeed comfort in consuming official govt spin!"

I didn't say that the Pentagon wasn't a legitimate military target, I corrected the poster and explained to him that it was a command centre, not an intelligence centre.

My naive belief that economic infrastructure is not a military target highlights nothing other than my experience of being involved with the planning of military operations. That’s been my career and my knowledge of the military planning processes, target selections and ‘govt spin’ puts me in a position of knowing exactly what the truth is behind that ‘spin’.

A lot of ill-informed ‘armchair experts’, however many books they read, fail to grasp reality on this sort of thing. I see it every day at work.

I do think it is time to probably close Guantanamo down, from a US viewpoint, and quietly reopen it somewhere else, a little less accessible. I'm certain the facility at Diego Garcia (UK) could be expanded, after all we're not talking about huge numbers here.

I do think it is time to probably close Guantanamo down, from a US viewpoint, and quietly reopen it somewhere else, a little less accessible. I'm certain the facility at Diego Garcia (UK) could be expanded, after all we're not talking about huge numbers here.

Phan.... that's just transferring the problem elsewhere and the heat onto the UK.... I don't think that is a particularly wise move.

bah, it's just a cunning ploy to get them under nominal UK jurisdiction, only to mount a hugely expensive action under the EHCR, funded naturally by our hard earned taxes, to free the terrorists (suspects? terrorists? who cares?!) and give them all large houses in Hunter's Bar. With cable!

bah, it's just a cunning ploy to get them under nominal UK jurisdiction, only to mount a hugely expensive action under the EHCR, funded naturally by our hard earned taxes, to free the terrorists (suspects? terrorists? who cares?!) and give them all large houses in Hunter's Bar. With cable!

I suppose a few more won't harm.... :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

bah, it's just a cunning ploy to get them under nominal UK jurisdiction, only to mount a hugely expensive action under the EHCR, funded naturally by our hard earned taxes, to free the terrorists (suspects? terrorists? who cares?!) and give them all large houses in Hunter's Bar. With cable!

Very good point :hihi:

You do have a point Phan but i'm not sure the US will go for it. I think they see us as having a softer stance than us. But can you aslo imagine a jail housing large numbers of Muslims in the UK? I just think it would bring more trouble to these shores.

............ But can you aslo imagine a jail housing large numbers of Muslims in the UK?
We already do have several; Muslims now account for about 1 in 10 of the Uk jail population.

We already do have several; Muslims now account for about 1 in 10 of the Uk jail population.

And only make up 2.8% of the Country's total population.... that are accounted for. I am not gonna work the ratio out.

If you actually read the link, its a no brainer. It would be 'unislamic' for me as a British Citizen to go abroad and attack British troops!

(In my younger and more nieve days I nearly jointed the TA's, under the misunderstanding that the TA's are the last line of defence for Britain.
Lucky I didn't as I would have been expected to visit Iraq!)

If someone invaded these shores, then yes ofcourse I'd defend my home.

Z


Can we take it from this you would have certain objections to getting involved in a war with Iraq because you would then be fighting Muslims?

So can you tell us what happened to those one million victims of his regime. Oh I get it - they simply committed mass suicide. Perhaps in your mind, those 5,000 Kurds gassed at Halabja simply stuck their heads in their gas ovens. And another world leader calling for the assassination of a sitting President is an act of war against the US, just as another world leader calling for the assassination of Blair would be an act of war against the UK.

And I suppose if Blair and Bush were to announce tomorrow that they were going to topple Mugabe, within five minutes you and your ilk would be out in the streets and on these boards defending him. :loopy:

You did forget to mention that the time between the Bush senior and Bush junior presidancy a company called Halliburton had dealings with saddam and the CEO at the time was none other than Dick Cheney.
this was after hallabja!

heres another aspect of why i would have liked to know which flag zafar would have fought under .....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1634517.stm

now, as there are many muslems living in britain,claiming british status i was wondering ,why so few are prepared to join the british armed forces to defend and protect britain against her enemies,hence the question,which army would you fight for ?suppose conscription was called for, would the people who pull down the british policies choose to return from whence they came ? or would they organize another march in support of their adopted homeland, as for my link, it suggests that the muslims should back their adopted country,they like zafa who are quick to shout out the virtues of their religion often miss out the small bits like this.....i despair ? i do not, i hope.....

I don't think it's self-evident that if you live in a particular country, you should be prepared to join its armed forces. I'm British, but I wouldn't join up, even under conscription (unless I thought there was a very good reason for doing so). People are entitled to choose which causes they would fight for, and which they won't. People who didn't want to fight in WWI (although the British state would have murdered them if they had refused to go), might have been prepared to fight in the Spanish Civil War, for example.

I am British born and bred. :D

and I'm tanned all year round, but thats not what I asked now is it ?

Its a simple question, no need for a Melanie Philips response...

I'll answer.... I would back Britain and fight for them against the Jews.... there! that wasn't too hard was it?

The question was for Wendygs.

Z

Zafar: "Your argument about the pentagon not being a legitimate target in war is sureal to say the least....The command structures of a enemy are amongst THE very first targets that should be taken out.

The US has been practicing low intesity warfare for decades. Killing a 100,000 people over x number of years as oppossed to a single attack is the more 'efficient' solution that the US has practised in the South America's.

Your belief that the economic infrastructure is not a military target kind of highlights your reliance, indeed comfort in consuming official govt spin!"

I didn't say that the Pentagon wasn't a legitimate military target, I corrected the poster and explained to him that it was a command centre, not an intelligence centre.

My naive belief that economic infrastructure is not a military target highlights nothing other than my experience of being involved with the planning of military operations. That’s been my career and my knowledge of the military planning processes, target selections and ‘govt spin’ puts me in a position of knowing exactly what the truth is behind that ‘spin’.

A lot of ill-informed ‘armchair experts’, however many books they read, fail to grasp reality on this sort of thing. I see it every day at work.

Inwhich case accept my apologies for being out of track with the postings.

Z

Originally Posted by depoix
heres another aspect of why i would have liked to know which flag zafar would have fought under .....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1634517.stm

now, as there are many muslems living in britain,claiming british status i was wondering ,why so few are prepared to join the british armed forces to defend and protect britain against her enemies,hence the question,which army would you fight for ?suppose conscription was called for, would the people who pull down the british policies choose to return from whence they came ? or would they organize another march in support of their adopted homeland, as for my link, it suggests that the muslims should back their adopted country,they like zafa who are quick to shout out the virtues of their religion often miss out the small bits like this.....i despair ? i do not, i hope.....Yes I'd also like to know the answer to that as well.
I think we know the answer to that. Many of Britain's potential enemies are THEIR friends.

You have my answer, now I'll ask you the same answer that your favourite journalist Melanie Phillips was asked on Question Time and one which she declined to answer.

In the scenario of a War between Britain and Israel, who would YOU be backing ?

Z
For starters, we're about as likely to have a war with Israel as what we are with the US or Australia. But in the event of a war against Iran, I can guess as to who you'll be backing.

For starters, we're about as likely to have a war with Israel as what we are with the US or Australia. But in the event of a war against Iran, I can guess as to who you'll be backing.

Its beginning to feel like Question Time now.
Ask as 'simple' question and anything but a 'reply'...

On the one hand For starters, we're about as likely to have a war with Israel as what we are with the US or Australia.

and then on the other.

I think we know the answer to that. Many of Britain's potential enemies are THEIR friends.

logic at it best. :thumbsup:

LordC,

An interesting article in the observer re 'gitmo' and inparticular contains some telling claims from the US administration in the recent past about some of the prisoners.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1717845,00.html

Z

I read an article in the Guardian on saturday about Moazzam Begg who had been in Guantanamo for 3 years.. quite scary really. Fair enough the guy had been to some places he shouldn't have but he wasn't actually *guilty* of anything.. the methods used by the US government didn't suprise me at all - they're well out of order.

I read an article in the Guardian on saturday about Moazzam Begg who had been in Guantanamo for 3 years.. quite scary really. Fair enough the guy had been to some places he shouldn't have but he wasn't actually *guilty* of anything.. the methods used by the US government didn't suprise me at all - they're well out of order.

I suppose you have the proof or at the very least the facts to back your claim with? and do you always believe everything you read in the papers?

Moazzam Begg isn't proven guilty of anything.

Funny that - a bit like how the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 weren't guilty of anything, because the evidence against them was found to be unsafe (they just happened for example to have explosive residue on their bathroom towels, but they weren't making bombs to kill innocent people in Belfast).

And Moazzam Begg was probably researching a book on the geology of Afghanistan, not working and training with elements of al Quaeda.

He's "innocent" because there aren't witnesses to prove what he was doing. And because he says he wasn't doing anything bad - largely because his obsessive, idealistic crusade in support of al Quaeda came crashing down around him, along with the other European terrorists that were caught when the coalition tore Tora Bora stone from stone, and he suddenly decided that Holy Jihad wasn't for him if he could wangle out of it and get back to comfy Britain.

I suppose you have the proof or at the very least the facts to back your claim with? and do you always believe everything you read in the papers?

No I don't always believe everything I read in the papers. But since I can't visit Gitmo to see for myself I have to form opinions on whatever information is available to me and I am happy to accept that this guys story is probably something close to the truth. He describes it to be pretty much as the UN and various other organisations have described it and the reasons for wanting it closed seem fairly valid to me.

He describes being in various detention centres since 2002 with a long spell in Guantanamo, being in solitary for 2 years, being kicked, beaten, suffocated, stripped naked, chained to the top of a door by his hands and left hanging, kept from sleeping for prolonged periods etc etc. After all this he was asked to sign a forged confession.

You're either going to tell me this is.. a) made up or b) acceptable because he was a terrorist and they deserve whatever they have coming.

But personally, I think this is likely to be pretty much as it happened, why else would Gitmo be where it is and not on US soil... why would the UN and various other influential organisations want it closed and say what went on there amounted to torture?

And no I don't think that kind of treatment is acceptable. If people are found guilty then they should be punished, not before they've been found guilty.

He was finally released as they could find no link between him and terrorism.
Maybe they should be a little more picky about who they lock up - I don't think offering bounty hunters $2,000 to capture suspected terrorists is going to be overly successful.

I suppose you could say then....its his word against theirs in his treatment.... funny how they let him "just go" when they couldn't establish any terror links.... do you think that might imply that they were doing justice by him?

Moazzam Begg isn't proven guilty of anything.

Funny that - a bit like how the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 weren't guilty of anything, because the evidence against them was found to be unsafe (they just happened for example to have explosive residue on their bathroom towels, but they weren't making bombs to kill innocent people in Belfast).

I guess the main difference between the two cases is that the IRA bombers were acquitted in a British court of law, with the proceedings mostly open to the press and public, and in front of a jury; which is of course the way they were convicted too. And that they were only subject to relatively mild physical and mental brutality, although that is a debate in itself.

Begg was not given the luxury of meeting his 'representation' nor was his brutalisation mild. His 'trial' was held in camera. The US authorities investigating did not have to let him go, and could hold on to him indefinitely should they wish. As they have done so far with other, ostensibly 'innocent', individuals.

The problem with Guantanamo is not the treatment of the inmates, but that the treatment of the inmates has become a news story, which has in turn inflamed opinion, adding to the building pressure of resentment against the USA, both from the dissident fringes of its allies to the mainstream public of its antagonists.

We are fighting the hydra with one hand, and feeding it with another.

I'll answer.... I would back Britain and fight for them against the Jews.... there! that wasn't too hard was it?

Well that seems a passable interpretation of my post which I felt summed up most of my views on the matter.

With the wisdom of hindsight, always a powerful friend, it is apparent that my assessment was erroneous.

I heard Robbie_Lovin's been banned from there :huh:

I heard Robbie_Lovin's been banned from there :huh:
:D :D

Hi DK are you sure you arent a bit disorientated after your extended and greatly missed absence. Now that you're here I wondered if you'd mind adding your extra charm to liven things up in here because some SFusers have taken this sooooooooooo seriously that it's doing my head in.

*scratches freshly washed hair and apologises* whoops meant to say "lighten up". Hope you enjoyed your enforced stint of house cleaning, holiday and birthday or have I got it in the wrong order. ANyhow I'm sure you know what I mean even if our dear zafar doesnt :P

The question was for Wendygs.

Z


Back by zafar's command. This is a public forum and anyone has the right to state whatever they wish subject to the site-owners rules.

To reiterate a previous post, I am British born and bred which is where my loyalties lie and if not previously stated explicitly your increasingly tiresome assumptions lack any reality.

For the avoidance of all doubt I do not approve of physical or psychological violence on any basis or at all and I do not knowingly involve myself in any such activities, wars included.

Although I may be mistaken I think my posts of today's date say the rest.