PDA

View Full Version : Should we import terrorists?


LGS6753
19th Dec 2007, 20:00
Three terrorists have been invited in to the UK by the "British" Government - arrived this evening at Luton from Guantanamo Bay. The UK Government had no reason to invite them here, they are not native to UK, not Citizens of UK, merely lived here some years ago.

Has this Government gone completely mad?
Isn't their first priority to safeguard the British people, not endanger them by importing people our Allies consider dangerous?

419
19th Dec 2007, 20:12
Confirming the release of the detainees, Britain's interior ministry said the three men's return to Britain did not mean they would be permitted to stay in the country.

"[This] does not imply commitment on our part that they can remain permanently in the United Kingdom. Their immigration status will now be reviewed," a spokeswoman said.

Sounds a bit like the time that the Government assured us that the 9 Afghan hijackers who flew into Stanstead, would not be permitted to stay in the UK.

Avitor
19th Dec 2007, 20:17
"Has this government gone completely mad?"

Should read....'Confirms their madness'

Time will tell!

priapism
19th Dec 2007, 20:20
Invite them in, assassinate them then pass it off as the will of Allah - no problems.

PPRuNe Radar
19th Dec 2007, 20:22
What terrorist crimes were they convicted of by the way ??

LGS6753
19th Dec 2007, 20:33
Radar -

Not convicted, but under suspicion, in time of war, by our Ally.

My point is that, as we did not need to import them, why did we?

radeng
19th Dec 2007, 20:42
Our 'ally' has got so many things wrong in the 'war on terror', how do we know they got these allegations right?
Now we find that despite the claims by their President, they've lied about torturing prisoners. How can you believe anything they say? How much evidence have they fabricated?
It's not for nothing that the Met Police say that FBI stands for 'Famous But Incompetent'

LGS6753
19th Dec 2007, 20:55
Whether or not you sympathize with the US and its methods, no-one has yet addressed the question why did a UK Government import potentially dangerous people unneccessarily?

TheDesertFerret
19th Dec 2007, 21:09
They've all been nicked.

I think you need to sit tight on the outcome of the "interviews" before judegment is made and we can give informed replies to the thread starter's question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7152117.stm

radeng
19th Dec 2007, 21:50
But are they potentially dangerous?
just because the US says that they are, doesn't of necessity make them so.
After all. the US history of getting allegations correct is pretty suspect. Most of the statemenmts over the last few years seem to have been made more for political capital than anything else.
Frankly, if a US government official said it was raining, I'd need to look out of the window to check before I'd believe him. So would an awful lot of my American friends
One of the great lies is 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help you'. Goes with 'The cheque is in the mail' and 'I'll still respect you in the morning'.

Load Toad
19th Dec 2007, 22:25
Have they been charged or convicted of any crime?
Where were they 'arrested' - for doing what?

If they aren't terrorists - (give me your proof they are) and they have a right to reside in UK then of course they can.

And if we haven't yet realised that simply approaching the current 'terror' situation by stamping feet, shouting and shooting and stuff then we aren't going to move on, forward or to a better world are we. I'm frankly bored of 'terror', bored of being advised to be scared and fed up seeing people get killed while religious nutters on both sides have a pissing competition with peoples lives.

brickhistory
19th Dec 2007, 22:28
One of the great lies is 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help you'.

Agreed. And you wonder why we value the right to bear arms?



But, please take all the Gitmo prisoners you want.


The jihadists will make more.




(apologies to the snack food company whose ad I 'borrowed.')


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genuine question regarding some of these detainees.

Using a hypothetical example:

If US/UK/Afghan forces take a Taliban fighter prisoner - he's armed, has been fighting against Coalition forces, but is not in uniform nor part of a state armed force, WHAT is his status?

Is he a criminal? If so, what are the charges?
Is he a prisoner of war? If so, when does he get released? And to whom?

What is the correct solution to some of these guys? There are numerous instances where released detainees from both Gitmo and other detention centers have been released and come back to, literally, fight another day.

I don't have the solution (other than a 7.62 one at the time of capture....) and wonder what should be done with them?

G-CPTN
19th Dec 2007, 22:35
I guess being incarcerated for four years without sufficient evidence to convict (and losing your sight in the case of one) doesn't create an ideal scenario for sliding seamlessly and quietly into 'western' society.
If you were one of these guys what would you do (in the long term) to show your gratitude for the way you have been treated?

Bally Heck
19th Dec 2007, 23:19
Not being a lawyer, these are the assumptions which I widely hold. (And I refer to western democracies)
If you are a criminal and are caught, you are tried in a court of law, and if convicted you are sentenced.
If you are a war criminal, much the same happens. (Unless you are a politician on the winning side).
If you are a combatant taken prisoner on the field of battle, you are entitled to treatment in accordance with the Geneva convention. Now this is a very big convention with some big words in it. The 3rd Geneva convention is the one which defines what a prisoner of war is, and how they should be treated. Unsurprisingly, the current US administration either don't understand the big words, or more likely, consider it doesn't apply to them.
The present United States administration has taken it upon itself to define a new category of combatant, which it believes gives it the right to do whatever it thinks fit in contravention of the Geneva convention. This category is "unlawful combatant", Although, by which law is unclear.
Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and water boarding are among the results of this unilateral definition.
I think the founding fathers of the United States would be filled with revulsion at the turn of events. I believe most of Europe is.

brickhistory
19th Dec 2007, 23:27
Ok, I'm going to try once more to keep this academic and not turn it into a 'us' vs 'them' match but would be more than happy to once again not give a damn about 'what Europe or elsewhere thinks.'

But I'll make the attempt to keep it civil.

If a Taliban is captured and he was armed, seen fighting US/UK forces, WHAT is he and how should he be dealt with?

Is he a criminal?
Is he a POW?
Is he something else entirely?

Al Qeada has declared 'war' on the West, so if one of their leaders is captured, in what status is he? How should he be dealt with?

I do not have the answer. I dare say none of the governments involved have the answer but have to, nonetheless, deal with the problem. None of them are any smarter than we are and I believe they are trying to deal with it the best they can. But what is it the best way?

So, what is the answer?

AirScrew
19th Dec 2007, 23:29
100% agree Bally.

And we in Europe sure are....

John Hill
19th Dec 2007, 23:30
Not just Europe Bally Heck.:(

AirScrew
19th Dec 2007, 23:34
I agree with most what you say Bally, but then I asked myself, OK, how did we (the UK) treat captured IRA terrorists??.

I'm not clear wether or not we stuck to the Geneva convention.

Anyone remember???

con-pilot
19th Dec 2007, 23:54
I'm not clear wether or not we stuck to the Geneva convention.


Actually you did not, I was not going to point that out for the obvious reason. Glad you did bring that up.

(Well not you personally AirScrew. :p)

Bally Heck
19th Dec 2007, 23:57
Quite so Airscrew. And whether it was government sponsored or not I'm not too sure. There are certainly a lot of heads to be hung in shame on both sides. But the solution as it transpired was not torture or imprisonment or discrimination.
It was the engagement of both sides in meaningful talks to resolve differences and find ways to live in harmony. (How crass does that sound....bleuarghhhh)
However, Ulster, the North of Ireland, or whatever you care to call it is now a fairly peaceful and prosperous place.
This is (I believe) due to a few honourable politicians persuading a number of pretty bigotted politicians (and lets face it...population) that hatred was not a good future scenario.

BenThere
20th Dec 2007, 00:10
Geneva protections, under the agreements by the signatories, are not given, but earned by being a lawful combattant.

If you fire from a Mosque, don't wear a uniform, are not under command flowing to a state, or commit any of a number of agreed violations, you lose your protection under Geneva, and are protected only by the humane nature, or lack thereof, alas, of your captors.

Make your argument on humane grounds if you wish to attack US policy and practice in fighting this war, but don't trot out any rights to Geneva protections for unlawful combattants (which Geneva accords define).

Better yet, screech at the top of your lungs about the barbaric practices of the other side, which make anything we have done, which is subject to our own scrutiny, pale in comparison.

A war between adversaries where one side must observe Geneva and the other need not makes no sense from several aspects.

Load Toad
20th Dec 2007, 00:54
Every f' time anyone raises a voice of dissent about what 'we' do some one says '...see how you like it over there / go tell them they are wrong'.

That's not the point.

Not agreeing with 'our' own methods does not mean we agree with or condone those murderous vile b***ards.

We should be trying to show that 'we' are above 'their' sordid and evil practices and proving 'we' support the rights of humans and wish to work towards making the world a better place.

BenThere
20th Dec 2007, 01:03
We are above their humanity, Load Toad.

Why, though, shouldn't we react to their attrocities by responding, "Okay, so you want to cut off heads? I'll show you how to cut off heads!"

Bally Heck
20th Dec 2007, 01:11
Well Benthere.
You have just about taken out most of the French, German and Italian resistance from WW2. And pretty much anyone who is on "our" side in the Middle East right now from protection under the Geneva convention.
Is it to do with International law? Or is it to do with being a human being?

AirScrew
20th Dec 2007, 01:11
BT,

Only the truly arrogant can believe they above another mans humanity (sic).

We have pretty much sorted out the North Ireland problem, and we certainly didnt do it with that attitude.

There gets to be a point when both sides can say, OK, enough bloodshed.
Thats when humanity and humility kicks in.

Bally Heck
20th Dec 2007, 01:13
And then he read the reply that said "we can cut off heads better than you".

And buggered off to another thread. Goodbye christians!

brickhistory
20th Dec 2007, 01:22
I'm noticing a distinct lack of 'what should we do' vs. the typical, 'well, I wouldn't do that!' comments, but it is a difficult subject, so I shouldn't expect any more than that.




Re the brew up about respecting the Geneva Conventions et al, so is it better to incarcerate someone for an indeterminate amount of time since we aren't bound by those Conventions or is it better to behead immediately or threaten to do so, usually followed by the follow through as practiced by the other side?

Is it better to be a live 'illegal combatant' or a dead 'high moral ground' Westerner?

con-pilot
20th Dec 2007, 01:22
We have pretty much sorted out the North Ireland problem

Not by following the Geneva Convention you didn't.

Load Toad
20th Dec 2007, 01:33
Yeah - of course - violence and murder followed by retaliation, more murder and violence has a really good track record in the Middle East so lets just copy that MO and we'll all be happy bunnies eh?

Whose heads should we start with? Your kids or my kids?

Bally Heck
20th Dec 2007, 01:37
Exactly Con.
Wasn't done by doing Geneva. Definitely wasn't done by torture, bombing, kneecapping, incarceration, murder (on either side).
It was done by people who had enough of that. (Including a lot of people who were probably guilty of some of the above) (But that's war).
It was done by people talking, and deciding that the murder they had supported was unsupportable.
For every martyr there's a victim. And every victim is a martyr. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, Jew, Scientologist, Mormon, Taleban, American Taleban, Electric Monk.
Pardon me if I missed a religion. (There are so many)

brickhistory
20th Dec 2007, 01:38
Then what would you DO?

Love the sentiments, but what would you do to solve the problem(s)?

con-pilot
20th Dec 2007, 01:39
Whose heads should we start with? Your kids or my kids?

No, you start with the heads of the leaders of the terrorist groups. Then pretty soon there will be no leaders.

Bally Heck
20th Dec 2007, 01:47
Marvelous idea Con. Tony Blair has gone now. George Bush doesn't have anything in his head to cut off.
Let me at the next lot with my axe. Osama Bin Dustin is a figment. Who's head are we going to sever? Ask the French two centuries ago. History classes all round I feel. Especially in the provinces.

Load Toad
20th Dec 2007, 02:07
Right - so these 'leaders' that we can't catch & don't know where they are and are not that important to what's going on on the ground - we are going to cut off their heads - and to make this something we can communicate - we are going to do this live on TV - and we are going to show the world and say.

'There you go - land of the free...home of the brave, rule of law, democracy - habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the constitution - 'ave it!'

Whilst swinging the disembodied head from side to side and grinning like an imbecile and thanking god or such...

You haven't thought this through very much have you?

con-pilot
20th Dec 2007, 02:19
You haven't thought this through very much have you?

Oh no, I have thought this through very well thank you. Same old story isn't it.

"Well it's alright that we did this to protect us, but you Yanks are way out of line."

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Load Toad
20th Dec 2007, 02:23
Matey - where have I mentioned anything about nationality? I don't much believe in it myself anyway.

I haven't argued for any convention or respect for any - nor the opposite.

But in most cases where 'terrorist' issues have been solved it has bee through politics and negotiation.

Put Guns and Ammo down and read a bit of history - there's a good chap.

brickhistory
20th Dec 2007, 02:32
Again, I ask: What would you DO? What negotiations would you conduct? What terms would you offer? What ones would you accept?


It's really easy to criticize, much harder to actually do something.

Foss
20th Dec 2007, 02:33
North Ireland. It's not.
It's Northern Ireland.

As for peace and all that, you just have to watch former bad men walking down the street. And suck it up.
Even if they've targetted you or your family, that's history, over.

Just as long as they don't mess with your [email protected] car.
Fos

AMF
20th Dec 2007, 03:42
Load Toad Matey - where have I mentioned anything about nationality? I don't much believe in it myself anyway.

I haven't argued for any convention or respect for any - nor the opposite.

But in most cases where 'terrorist' issues have been solved it has bee through politics and negotiation.

Put Guns and Ammo down and read a bit of history - there's a good chap.

Oh, please do give us a history lesson here and enlighten us! Specifics please....there's a good chap... examples from the plethora of "terrorist" issues solved by politics and negotiation you say exist.

StbdD
20th Dec 2007, 04:05
All countries have dirty laundry in this regard. And they all thought it proper at the time... take the 'military tribunals' in Isreal/Palestine in the 40's for instance. Like it or not they were often rubber stamp affairs leading to hangings of 'terrorists'. Easier to deal with? Yassir! Done. About turn and march off. All better now right?

Or the French in Indochina, or the Belgians in Africa, or the Dutch in Indonesia, ect, etc.

I always thought Rudulph Hess was a good case study in what civilized nations do with prisoners during conflict. Worth a read if you are interested. Captured 10 May 1941 on what was apparently a peace mission. Held in the close confinement in the Tower of London throughout the war and, at least by rumour, subject to intense brainwashing efforts. Off to Nuremburg for war crimes trials (how did he manage to commit one of them before May 1941? Who knows, fast worker maybe) then kept in Spandau prison until his death by, ahem, suicide in 1987, the longest held Nazi 'war criminal'.

Krupp, Flick, Raeder, Speer and Doenitz (all of whom who shared his sentence of life imprisonment) were released by the 60s. Krupp and Flick had their ill gotten riches restored to them. Hess was kept imprisoned at the insistence of two nations, the USSR and Britain, until his death.
So, as much as I'd like to think humans are civilized enough not to abuse each other for their own benefit, I don't. I'm sure it was best Hess stayed drugged up and shut up in prison for the rest of his life to prevent embarassment to someone.

The Geneva conventions were written in a well minded attempt to prevent the nastier aspects of war. They have seldom done so and serve only as a tool to screw those who attempt to respect them.

I do not advocate torture. I absolutely abhor the humiliations of abu ghraib. That was a half-assed, untrained, thrown together guard force that went incredibly stupid and deserves whatever the court decides. But they didn't cut off any heads for videos.

However, I have no problem with imprisoning those caught in the act of illegally attacking myself and or my allies and I do most definitely advocate imprisoning those who would attack my family or way of life. As has been pointed out, had they been in accordance with the Geneva Conventions upon capture, they have different rights. They weren't, and frankly could have been shot on the spot as an illegal combatant as defined by that Convention.

The Convention now only protects those who don't play by the rules. Soldiers know that. Terrorists, media, and opposition parties play off it.

If, as in WWII, we get around to the trials after the war, we are doing nothing more or less than what has been considered acceptable in past practice. It's certainly better than the quicky kangaroo court hangings or a bullet through the head which occured when it suited others to resolve those sticky problems. Or is it?

(Ah. But, you are thinking, “how can we tell when the war ends?” Excellent question, but not our problem. Guess they should have thought about that before they decided to pick up their cards and make the bet they did. They tried taking advantage of ‘our’ rules…. and the rules are biting them in the ass. There are some real problems with guerrila warfare, first of which is that you have no rights under the Convention.)

It’s a new world. The days of Chivalry, and honouring ones opponent are past and have been for some time. The Conventions were an attempt to continue the age of chivalry and keep the serfs in line since technology gave them better weapons and capabilities. It was also a reaction to the emergence of chemical and biological warfare. It was an attempt to keep the battlefield ‘clean’. The first people who recognized the falacy of that concept were the guerillas. They used the ‘rules’ against the traditional armies. They honoured no laws and struck where they could.

Pure terrorists struck at civilian centers where the death rate would be high to get the publicity they wanted. They will continue to do so and will eventually employ MWD weapons effectively.

Oh, just noticed the French convicted a few of their folks from Guantanamo on a criminal charge, and promptly released them for time served. I've got a tenner that says we see those names again.

Time to wake up as a human race, come to some understandings, write some new laws and take these threats to society out. Won’t happen because you can’t legislate respect for each other. But I live in hope.

WorkingHard
20th Dec 2007, 05:52
"Hess was kept imprisoned at the insistence of two nations, the USSR and Britain, until his death."

Just for clarity, it was USSR only; Britain wanted to free him but could not under the agreement. It gave USSR reason to be in that area so they kept him alive.

StbdD
20th Dec 2007, 06:20
Not important to the topic but:

The West German newspaper Bild reported that Hess was going to be released on his 93rd birthday on 26th April 1987. (Bild, 21st April, 1987) Hess knew differently, he told Abadallah Melaouhi, his nurse, that the “English will kill me” before I am released. (BBC Newsnight, 28th February 1989).

According to Sir Christopher Mallaby, Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet Office, the British did indeed block his release. Gorbachev told Margaret Thatcher that he would expose the British hypocrisy by withdrawing the Soviet guards from Spandau Prison.


The 93 year old then figured out a way to hang himself that had evaded him for 50 years or so. Just as he would be released. The nut. Go figure.

AirScrew
20th Dec 2007, 08:00
It looks like one of the 'imports' will be quickly exported again - to Spain...

Meethinks there was some behind the scenes collusion between the spooks, and no surprise there.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071220/tuk-uk-britain-guantanamo-fa6b408_2.html

AirScrew
20th Dec 2007, 08:04
I'm adding the full text, because it makes interesting reading, given the content of this thread.
Smells a bit like over the table rendition...

LONDON (Reuters) - A British resident freed from the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists was arrested in connection with a Spanish extradition request on Thursday hours after returning to Britain, police said.
ADVERTISEMENT

A police spokesman identified the man as 45-year-old Jordanian Jamil el-Banna. "He is being held on a European arrest warrant alleging terrorist related offences that was issued on behalf of the Spanish authorities," said the spokesman.

Police said Banna would appear before a London court later on Thursday. No other details were immediately available.

Banna was taken to Guantanamo Bay after being arrested at an airport in the West African country of Gambia in November 2002.

He and two other inmates from Guantanamo Bay, Libyan Omar Deghayes, 37, and Algerian Abdennour Sameur, 33, arrived in Britain on Wednesday after more than four years in captivity.

Deghayes and Sameur were arrested shortly before landing at an airport north of London under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and taken to a police station for questioning.

The two were seized in Pakistan after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, although specifics of exactly why and when they were detained are not clear.

The three men were accompanied by a doctor and put under escort by counter-terrorism police during the flight back to Britain, their lawyers said.

Their release from Guantanamo Bay followed campaigning by their families.

The United States has described the men as dangerous.

Having previously declined to seek the release of non-British nationals, the British government changed its stance in August and asked Washington to free five British residents held at Guantanamo Bay.

Earlier this month, the United States agreed to free Banna, Deghayes and Sameur but rejected a plea on behalf of another man and is still in talks over the fifth.

Washington did not say why it had decided to comply with Britain's request but has come under fierce international criticism for its detention policies at Guantanamo Bay.

On Wednesday, the Home Office said the men's return to Britain did not necessarily mean they would remain in the country.

"(This) does not imply commitment on our part that they can remain permanently in the United Kingdom. Their immigration status will now be reviewed," a Home Office spokeswoman said.

PanPanYourself
20th Dec 2007, 08:14
A war between adversaries where one side must observe Geneva and the other need not makes no sense from several aspects.
How much sense does a war between a country and a tactic make? Or better yet, a war between a country and an inanimate object?

I obviously refer to the US "war on terror" and "war on drugs." Both will never ever be won because they are logical fallacies. I don't think the intention ever was to win them anyway, but now I'm getting too Orwellian.


Three terrorists have been invited in to the UK by the "British" Government - arrived this evening at Luton from Guantanamo Bay.

Terrorist is a wonderful word isn't it fellas?

The Nazis referred to the Jewish resistance as terorrists. It's strange how when you use that word against someone the "innocent until proven guilty" rule goes straight out the window.

I'm starting to think terrorist is a word imprinted in most people's brains before birth so that when they hear it all rational thought processes cease, and an uncanny sense of patriotism and love of Jesus comes to light.

Forkandles
20th Dec 2007, 08:24
Jordanian Jamil el-Banna 45, and two other inmates from Guantanamo Bay, Libyan Omar Deghayes, 37, and Algerian Abdennour Sameur, 33, arrived in Britain on Wednesday after more than four years in captivity.


So, instead of waiting for immigrants to rock up on the doorstep claiming asylum, we are actively going out and searching for asylum seekers?


"Their immigration status will now be reviewed," a Home Office spokeswoman said.


Oh, well that's alright then. :(

ZH875
20th Dec 2007, 08:33
"Their immigration status will now be reviewed," a Home Office spokeswoman said.


Lets hope Customs and Revenue don't get involved, they might lose them.

Reality
1. They will be refused immigration.
2. They will appeal, using Cherie Booth QC as their (paid for) Legal representative
3. They will win appeal.
4. They will sue and claim compensation.
5. They will get it.

Hoping For
1. They will be refused immigration.
2. They will appeal, using Cherie Booth QC as their (paid for) Legal representative
3. They will win appeal.
4. They will sue and claim compensation.
5. They form a group and carry out a successful suicide attack on the Blair and Brown families.

1DC
20th Dec 2007, 08:47
Why were these people put in prison in Guantanamo rather than the United States? I expect that poliitics had something to do with it but would be interested to know..
If we didn't have to grant them access to Britain, what was the point of doing it, we regularly refuse entry to people who appear to be good law abiding citizens so even if these guys were not terrorists but good law abiding citizens the precedent is set and we should refuse them..Nothing to do with whether America was right or wrong to detain them just a common sense solution for Britain.

radeng
20th Dec 2007, 10:35
Has anyone ever won against home grown 'terrorism'? The Hagenah, Irgun Stern Gang, EOKA, Mau-Mau and IRA all got what (or most of what) they wanted in the end. Even the PLO managed to get some concessions.The only lot who didn't were the Chinese communists in Malaya, and they weren't home grown. The big difference is that with the exception of the IRA, they stuck to ther own territories: with the present wave, it's rather different.
I don't see why the 'illegal combatants' can't be treated like legal ones: in a POW camp until the war has ended. They might well come out in a box, having died of old age first, but that's always a chance. But with Red Cross inspection, you can't then get all the complaints that Gitmo has brought up.
Which one lost an eye, and how?

Bronx
20th Dec 2007, 22:39
Why were these people put in prison in Guantanamo rather than the United States?
To deprive them of the legal rights they would have had as suspects if they were detained in the US. No other reason.

AMF
20th Dec 2007, 23:00
radeng
Which one lost an eye, and how?

Don't know which one, but perhaps he saw an unveiled female Marine and plucked his own eye out so he could still get into heaven.

brickhistory
20th Dec 2007, 23:16
an uncanny sense of patriotism and love of Jesus comes to light.

There are worse fates.................

G-CPTN
20th Dec 2007, 23:43
I couldn't tell any of the three from Adam (except they probably wear clothing), but the one who has lost sight was sprayed in the face with pepper spray and then gouged in the eyes with thumbs as he was kicking-off about something related to the abuse of the koran - (a riot team were sent in).
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44314000/jpg/_44314059_el-banna300_getty.jpg
Read more about the (UK) detainees here:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6934782.stm
Edited to add:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Deghayes

Utrinque Apparatus
21st Dec 2007, 10:55
Want to see someone being tortured - Gordon Brown at the Despatch Box is a good start :E

Soon to be despatched I think. :}

radeng
21st Dec 2007, 11:10
G-CPTN

>but the one who has lost sight was sprayed in the face with pepper spray and then gouged in the eyes with thumbs as he was kicking-off about something related to the abuse of the koran<

Very civilised behaviour. And Bush says that the US don't torture! Sounds like a war crime to me.

tony draper
21st Dec 2007, 11:12
Yup bet our Tone is lying on a sun drenched beach somewhere chorling,nyuk nyuk nyuk.
:E

AMF
21st Dec 2007, 11:54
PanPanYourself Quote:
How much sense does a war between a country and a tactic make? Or better yet, a war between a country and an inanimate object?

I think you're taking the term a little to literally. Everyone knows it simply means warring against those people who employ the tactics. Now you know too.

I obviously refer to the US "war on terror" and "war on drugs." Both will never ever be won because they are logical fallacies.

I'm not sure about the war on terror...I mean, can you ever be sure you exterminate all the cockroaches? But the war on drugs won't be won not because it's a logical fallacy...it won't be won because a lot of people like to snort coke and do crystal meth.

I don't think the intention ever was to win them anyway, but now I'm getting too Orwellian.

Gee, ya think? Aliens live under the Denver Airport too.

Terrorist is a wonderful word isn't it fellas?

I find it to be merely a descriptor. Some letters strung together.

The Nazis referred to the Jewish resistance as terorrists. It's strange how when you use that word against someone the "innocent until proven guilty" rule goes straight out the window.

Does it? Hmm, I seem to recall that Mousa-what's-his-name, Robert Reed, and Timothy McVeigh all getting a fair trial under the rules of the courtroom. That is, innocent until proven guilty, and they were all labeled "Terrorists". Perhaps it's different where you're from.

I'm starting to think terrorist is a word imprinted in most people's brains before birth so that when they hear it all rational thought processes cease,...

Translated; "Anyone agreeing with me is objective and rational. Most other people (and due to my uniqueness feel comfortable assigning the following attributes to them), are born without any value judgement capability and thus easily triggered Manchurian Candidate-style by a mere word and driven with fear and irrational emotion by propoganda-producing Puppetmasters. If only they were more like me.

...and an uncanny sense of patriotism...

I just love it when American patriotism makes people nervous.

and love of Jesus comes to light.

Now during my entire adult life I haven't been church-goer (I put my faith in good beer), but since you brought it up, I don't recall Jesus ever urging others to do things like "take up swords and overthrow the Romans". On the contrary, he was more along the lines of "Any without sin cast the first stone" and "Turn the other cheek". Basically, the world's most famous Pacifist.

Fundamentalist, "extremist" Jesus-believers like the Amish parents of the young schoolgirls executed by the wacko gunman last year, all victims of his terrorist tactics, immediately forgave the gunman, citing Jesus. Now to me that forgiveness based on "Love of Jesus" and his teachings is extreme, but certainly not dangerous.

This is at the other end of the spectrum of, say, ole' Muhammad, who was of course a tribal Warlord-Chieftan who's advocacy of tolerance and peace was of the paternalistic nature; That is, premised on first dominating, and dominate by the sword if neccesary. And of course, his teachings demand religion not only on the personal level, but also heavy involvemen into government/politics. That's more akin to the "Eye for an eye" and "Don't eat the pork" Old Testament stuff where you find Joshua razing entire cities in god's name.

Personally, I've never spent a moment of my life worrying about fanatical Amish, Quakers, Mennonites, or anyone else those found on the Concientious Objector's list due to fundamentalist beliefs in Jesus. And sure, Jehovah Witnesses might disturb you at the door while you're doing something important like rummaging through the 'fridge for another beer, but if a homeowner has ever suddenly been staring down a gun barrel held by such a "fanatic" after telling them "No thanks, now PFO", I sure haven't heard of it.

All this writing has made me thirsty...(headed to 'fridge)

brickhistory
21st Dec 2007, 12:11
but the one who has lost sight was sprayed in the face with pepper spray and then gouged in the eyes with thumbs as he was kicking-off about something related to the abuse of the koran<

Very civilised behaviour. And Bush says that the US don't torture! Sounds like a war crime to me.

Hmmm, of course it couldn't be that said gent was being a bit froggy with his captors and to feed and clean him they had to use force could it?

Nah, it had to be torture or a 'war crime.' First of all, what war? Is he a member of a state's armed forces? No, then at most, you could make this a criminal matter.

Secondly, if it were torture, wouldn't it have made more sense to get both eyes so that yon fair-haired Muslim coulnd't ID his torturers? I know that's what I'd do..............

Nah, just shoot him. No outrage, no fuss.........

But wait, we kept him alive, feed him, medically cleaned up all the 'woggies' he had at the time of capture, and turned him over to another nation.

Dang, we need to learn something about making folks disappear.............

YOU have fun with him.

PanPanYourself
21st Dec 2007, 12:17
I just love it when American patriotism makes people nervous.

Nauseous is the word you're looking for. Extremely nauseous.

Does it? I seem to recall that Mousa-what's-his-name, Robert Reed, and Timothy McVeigh all getting a fair trial under the rules of the courtroom.
Uh, that was clearly many years before 9/11, and the "patriot act" :yuk:

Translated; "Anyone agreeing with me is objective and rational. Most other people (who I feel to assign the following attributes to), are born without any value judgement capability and thus easily triggered Manchurian Candidate-style by a mere word and driven with fear and irrational emotion by propoganda-producing Puppetmasters. If only they were more like me.
Exactly! I'm glad we understand eachother. I thought I was pretty clear, but I like your translation better!


Now during my entire adult life I haven't been church-goer (I put my faith in good beer), but since you brought it up, I don't recall Jesus ever urging others to do things like "take up swords and overthrow the Romans".
I really don't care if Jesus told people to do this or Mohammed told them to kill that, it's all the same demented drivel to me.




Bit early to be drinking isn't it?

AMF
21st Dec 2007, 12:20
radeng
Very civilised behaviour. And Bush says that the US don't torture! Sounds like a war crime to me.

He should consider himself fortunate we didn't stuff him in a boxcar and cart him off to one of the super-duper double-secret, gas chamber-equipped concentration camps we're operating 'round the clock up in the mountains of Khazakstan...or Kyergistan...or somewhere.....

AMF
21st Dec 2007, 12:48
PanPanYourself Quote:

Nauseous is the word you're looking for. Extremely nauseous.

That makes me even happier to know you feel that way. "Extremely nauseous" trumps merely "nervous" by a mile. Let me know if you throw up, so I can celebrate a "job well done".


Uh, that was clearly many years before 9/11, and the "patriot act"

Wrong. Moussaoui was a self-proclaimed 9/11 hangers-on, arrested and convicted post 9/11, as was (sorry I got the name wrong) Richard "Shoe-bomber" Reid who was convicted on terrorism charges.

And your point had nothing to do with 9-11 or the Patriot Act which you're unsuccessfully (see above) trying to backpedal to, you were relating it to some nebulous point about calling anyone a "terrorist" and "guilty until proven innocent" supposedly went out the window. Timothy McVeigh was usually cited as a "home-grown terrorist", but he still got a fair trial. And the needle.

Exactly! I'm glad we understand eachother. I thought I was pretty clear, but I like your translation better!

Yes, I do understand your belief in your own self-importance and feeling of comfort when assigning others negative attributes since that's a neccessary step you have to take when bolstering your self-delusion.

I really don't care if Jesus told people to do this or Mohammed told them to kill that, it's all the same demented drivel to me.

Of course you don't care..pretending all is drivel, because it flies in the face of what you implied. And if admonishments to "Turn the othe cheek" equate to directions "Swipe the head of the Infidel" in your world, then you're definitely drowning in an ocean of Moral Relativism nobody can pull you from. Either that or the whale meat is tainted.

Bit early to be drinking isn't it?

It's never too early to be drinking here, since it's completely illegal.

radeng
21st Dec 2007, 13:06
I still maintain that CIVILISED people don't go round blinding their prisoners. For any excuse.
And if the torturer's cap fits, wear it!
After all, who were the first to complain about the Vietcong treatment of US POWs in Vietnam? Now you can argue that those were members of the armed forces, but where does the difference lie with a band who aren't paid, but ostensibly at least, were very closely involved with what was, per se, at the time the 'legitimate' Afghan government at the time, viz the Taliban. (All of whom I regards as illegitmate, anyway, but legally there's a difference).
A parallel in history were the privateers of the 19th century, who were effectively government sponsored pirates.

brickhistory
21st Dec 2007, 13:19
I still maintain that CIVILISED people don't go round blinding their prisoners. For any excuse.

And I agree with the first part of your statement. However, the only side of the story about the 'torture' and blinding of the guy to emerge is his. The same guy who wanted to kill/maim/destroy as many Westerners and their way of life as possible.

So, is it conceivable that he lied about how he was blinded? If it was done at the hands of US personnel, is it conceivable that it was an accident during a fight in his cell? Or is it only the facts as stated by the terrorist?

Very effective psyops on their part to cause all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the last six years. Where we - the US, the military, et al - are the 'bad guys' and not the ones who drove airplanes into buildings, set off backpacks on subways, etc.

Now I differ with you on the 'any excuse' part of your statement. If there's a big honking bomb set to go off in a shopping mall or other gathering place of innocent people and I have a guy who knows when/where/how the bomb will go off, I'd have no problem with his losing his sight.

I am sooooo barbaric. Seeing guys decapitated, killed, wounded by these animals tends to do that to me. Thank God (as someone else wrote, the white bearded, original one) we've got you to be our moral compass. Else what would happen to our western society?

AMF
21st Dec 2007, 15:02
PanPanYourself Quote:

No, I'm not pretending it's drivel. I know it's drivel. Christianity, Islam, the spaghetti monster, all of it.

Well there you go again changing the subject. Who said anything about religion, ie Christianity or Islam? You referred to the "love of Jesus", not Christianity, and such was my response. And even non-christian pacifists look to his teachings (if you're into that sort of thing). If you can't separate a religion spawned by teachings and the basic philosophical teachings themselves..I don't care what they are.. and judge them alone, I guess that's your lack comprehensive ability. Can't help you there.

It's people like you AMF who are in the minority by far, thinking the rest of us are too brainwashed to see how great and noble your war on terror is, when it's quite the opposite.

You first mistake is thinking I think care what the rest of the world thinks (the same one you've supposedly polled). Your second mistake is assuming that a mass of people protesting somewhere (I can even picture you carrying a sign among them) equates to mass intelligence or piercing geopolitical sophistication, especially when they're not even directly involved. Your third mistake is assuming I think terrorist-killing is great or noble..on the contrary, it's like bug extermination. Occasionally it just has to be done even though you get your hands dirty.

I see, so some packet sniffing, SQL injections, perhaps some cross-eyed scripting vulnerablities in pprune, and I should be able tip off the authorities as to your location.
tsk tsk

You could try, but then you'd be playing right into the hands of that religious drivel you purport to despise. If the Religious Police do show up, I'll credit you and respond accordingly. I have friends in Norway.

You're lucky that'll take a while and I can't be arsed, so cheers.

Cheers

Gnirren
21st Dec 2007, 18:47
Thread's getting good huh fellas' :ok:

Seasonal thanks from all of us for the Iraqi refugees that Sweden for some reason has to take care of after you bomb the shit out of them. I guess caring for the people you maim wasn't factored into the budget? May we look forward to refugees of the Iranian persuasion in 2008?

We'll send you a bill, consider it outsourcing, and no we don't take amex.

MReyn24050
21st Dec 2007, 19:05
Why was it necessary to charter a private aircraft to fly the three Guantanamo 'residents', foreign terrorist suspects, back to Britain? It also took ten police to accompany them. I understand that a special prayer room was onboard the aircraft. I am sure there must be a requirement for a RAF C130 to fly equipment/personnel to Belize in the near future they could have been held until such a flight took place and the aircraft could have called in at Guatanamo to pick these people up. No, we must treat them like royalty.
No wonder we are becoming the laughing stock of the world.

brickhistory
21st Dec 2007, 19:11
We'll send you a bill,

That's ok, just take it out of the accounts of the Nazis you sold iron ore to until 1944, the accounts of the refugees of WWII that still sit in your vaults (no, I'm not confusing you with the Swiss), and the safe deposits of the looted treasures of the occupied countries of Europe during WWII. An estimated $100 million plus (in 1945 dollars) went to Sweden in the last 15 months of the war that remains unaccounted for.

With interest since 1945, I'm sure it more than covers your costs.

Not to mention the millions we spent since WWII keeping the Soviets from using you as a speed bump...........

BenThere
21st Dec 2007, 19:34
Happy to oblige, Gnirren. Hope it helps Sweden's diversity quest!

Season's thanks to you for attending to their welfare.

ArthurR
21st Dec 2007, 19:40
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. My administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you Personally demanded in your letter of admonishment.

It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Ahmed's meal requirements are simple, but we strongly suggest serving meals that do not require utensils, particularly knives and forks. Also, these should be "one-handed" foods; Ahmed will not eat with his left hand since he uses it to wipe himself after purging his bowels(which he will do in your yard).

He generally bathes quarterly with the change of seasons, assuming that it rains, and he washes his clothes simultaneously. This should help with your water bill. Also, your new friend has a really bad case of body lice that hasn't been completely remedied.

Please heed the large orange notice attached to your detainee's cage:

"Does not play well with others."

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance, but his rabies test came back negative so not to worry.

We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clipper. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. However, he will be eager to assist with the education of your sons; have available for their use several copies of the Q'uran.

Oh - and rest assured he absolutely loves animals, especially cats and dogs. He prefers them roasted, but raw is fine, too, if they aren't more than 2 or 3 days dead.

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. We think this watching over each other's shoulder is such a good way for people to interact that we will be sending a team of federal officials with expertise in your line of work to your place of business soon, just to help you do your job better. Don't be concerned that they have the power to close your business, seize your property, and arrest you for any violation of the 4,850,206 laws, codes, regulations and rules that apply to your profession. They're really there just to make sure you're doing everything the proper way. That is what you wanted, right?

Well, thank you for this opportunity to interact with such a valued member of the citizenry. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember ...we'll be watching.

Cordially,

Your Buddy, Dubbya :ok:

For me enough said, these people want them released, let them take responsibility