Mail On Sunday Apache story
Oh boy
The whole WC thing, jeez haven't heard that one... man you got me, first time this week that has been used. Why dont you head out to the playground with that juvenile mentality.
If you want to debate, then do so without that silly sh!t. If you wish to be known as a nimrod continue with it. Your choice.
Beagle has for the years I have been active on the site, and for the time before I first posted consistantly registered opinions that cover all spectrums and are mostly negative about anything American. Feel free to correct me, show me how he has tended to support the American standpoint?
The whole WC thing, jeez haven't heard that one... man you got me, first time this week that has been used. Why dont you head out to the playground with that juvenile mentality.
If you want to debate, then do so without that silly sh!t. If you wish to be known as a nimrod continue with it. Your choice.
Beagle has for the years I have been active on the site, and for the time before I first posted consistantly registered opinions that cover all spectrums and are mostly negative about anything American. Feel free to correct me, show me how he has tended to support the American standpoint?
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast.
Agreed in the cold light of day the post was puerile and from the heat of anger and has been removed. But the original reason remains.
BEagles posts (at least the 'non-techie' ones) on this and other threads have generally been supportive of the alliance stance. He does not, however, seem to accept that it is right under all circumstances and on this occasion he has criticised the behaviour of an individual in a single action. This has apparently, in your eyes at least, instantly made him totally anti-American and his views unworthy of any attention.
Since he trained for, and presumably expected to use the training in action, a job fighting a war he must also have an understanding of the circumstances under which one is allowed to kill and to be allowed to make valid comment if the rules are exceeded.
Agreed in the cold light of day the post was puerile and from the heat of anger and has been removed. But the original reason remains.
BEagles posts (at least the 'non-techie' ones) on this and other threads have generally been supportive of the alliance stance. He does not, however, seem to accept that it is right under all circumstances and on this occasion he has criticised the behaviour of an individual in a single action. This has apparently, in your eyes at least, instantly made him totally anti-American and his views unworthy of any attention.
Since he trained for, and presumably expected to use the training in action, a job fighting a war he must also have an understanding of the circumstances under which one is allowed to kill and to be allowed to make valid comment if the rules are exceeded.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'innocent farmers' in the shot who are 'farming' at night because 'it's cooler', were actually moving weapons and ammo for use at a later date against British and American forces. A subsequent visit to the scene revealed that the men had been armed, there were weapons in the truck on the right, and that the man furthest to the left does not run to get his 'hoe' out of a bag (because he's just there doing some farming while it’s cool), but is actually pulling out an RPG.
As for the guy on the right, it was his choice to be there. Had he lived (and the video shows no evidence that he did not), there's a good chance he'd be out there now plotting and executing operations against British or American military and civilian personnel.
As for the guy on the right, it was his choice to be there. Had he lived (and the video shows no evidence that he did not), there's a good chance he'd be out there now plotting and executing operations against British or American military and civilian personnel.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of what (if any) weapons were aboard the truck or other vehicle, and what (if anything) the third guy would have done in the future, I don't see how an obviously injured man crawling on the ground is a DIRECT threat to the helos. ROE?
Since when did the wounded get special protection ? Lets get real - it's one thing for grunts who have over-run a position to make provisions for the wounded, but quite another for a helicopter to just let someone escape. If they were convinced that he was a legitimate target (and from preceding posts it would appear that he was) then the crew did a good job. Better they eliminate a hostile, than that chap next day puts an RPG through their rotor disc.
Personally, I thought it was great.
Personally, I thought it was great.
Westie,
You really must take it on trust that being robustly critical of current US foreign policy, to have a negative view of your President (and to believe that the legitimacy of his election may be questionable) and to deplore abuses of prisoners, unnecessarily gung-ho military actions (and sometimes gung ho is very much needed!) and occasionally poor kit (preferring the Airbus to the 767 as a tanker) does not make anyone 'anti-American'. If it did, then you could probably brand at least 25% of your own population as being anti-American - including many Democrats and some 'softer' Republicans like John McCain.
Then some of 'us Europeans' have further issues about America on trade, the environment (just sign up to Kyoto, you messy ba$tards, you're killing our planet!) and some even have some problem with US 'cultural values'.....
But many of your sternest critics love America, love the Americans they have met, choose America as their holiday destination of choice, perhaps day-dream about emigrating, and find much about American society to admire and even envy. To a certain extent, the USA gets stick because we perhaps expect too much from such a great country.
There are people who are anti-American, but I'm not one of them, and I'd guess that nor is BEagle.
You really must take it on trust that being robustly critical of current US foreign policy, to have a negative view of your President (and to believe that the legitimacy of his election may be questionable) and to deplore abuses of prisoners, unnecessarily gung-ho military actions (and sometimes gung ho is very much needed!) and occasionally poor kit (preferring the Airbus to the 767 as a tanker) does not make anyone 'anti-American'. If it did, then you could probably brand at least 25% of your own population as being anti-American - including many Democrats and some 'softer' Republicans like John McCain.
Then some of 'us Europeans' have further issues about America on trade, the environment (just sign up to Kyoto, you messy ba$tards, you're killing our planet!) and some even have some problem with US 'cultural values'.....
But many of your sternest critics love America, love the Americans they have met, choose America as their holiday destination of choice, perhaps day-dream about emigrating, and find much about American society to admire and even envy. To a certain extent, the USA gets stick because we perhaps expect too much from such a great country.
There are people who are anti-American, but I'm not one of them, and I'd guess that nor is BEagle.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current American administration are a bunch of right wing christian fundamentalist psycho's. A few facts about Bush:
- A drunk and a drop out at uni.
- Scored less than 40% in his aptitude tests for the reserve airforce yet was still allowed in.
- Skipped Vietnam
- Is obsessed by war, i.e. his video collection on Airforce one consists only of war movies, yet he has never been in one himself. He won't be happy unless he is fighting a war.
Take a look at a concept known as "pax americana", type it into google. This illustrates the extremism and idiotic nature of the current US administration. Quite imperialistic.
The American military:
A definate generalisation but you get the point:
- Bunch of hill billy non-educated white trash who are'nt happy unless they kill people and/or abuse prisoners.
- Many reservists in Iraq are very ill trained and ill disciplined.
Given this backdrop it angers me that Tony Blair sticks so close to America to the point that their terrible military tactics and bloodthirsty culture (see video clip) reflects very badly upon us British. Indeed our closeness with America, in particular this current administration is putting our national security in real danger. Its only a matter of time before London gets hit. There is no need for it. There was no need for the Iraq war.
I am not anti-American, but clearly George Bush (jnr) is incompetant and is simply not clever enough to do his job. I refer to his press conference a month or so ago when he simply could not answer rather simple questions because he had not prepared. It is my opinion that the reputation of the British military will suffer continuously until we make it clear that there is a difference between the two of us.
- A drunk and a drop out at uni.
- Scored less than 40% in his aptitude tests for the reserve airforce yet was still allowed in.
- Skipped Vietnam
- Is obsessed by war, i.e. his video collection on Airforce one consists only of war movies, yet he has never been in one himself. He won't be happy unless he is fighting a war.
Take a look at a concept known as "pax americana", type it into google. This illustrates the extremism and idiotic nature of the current US administration. Quite imperialistic.
The American military:
A definate generalisation but you get the point:
- Bunch of hill billy non-educated white trash who are'nt happy unless they kill people and/or abuse prisoners.
- Many reservists in Iraq are very ill trained and ill disciplined.
Given this backdrop it angers me that Tony Blair sticks so close to America to the point that their terrible military tactics and bloodthirsty culture (see video clip) reflects very badly upon us British. Indeed our closeness with America, in particular this current administration is putting our national security in real danger. Its only a matter of time before London gets hit. There is no need for it. There was no need for the Iraq war.
I am not anti-American, but clearly George Bush (jnr) is incompetant and is simply not clever enough to do his job. I refer to his press conference a month or so ago when he simply could not answer rather simple questions because he had not prepared. It is my opinion that the reputation of the British military will suffer continuously until we make it clear that there is a difference between the two of us.
Jacko, et al
My conclusions on Beagle are not based on his likes or dislikes of a particular piece of equipment or who resides in the White House, thats fair game. It is a deeper sense I find with him. Ranging from social commentary to daily life in America. If I used preference of aircraft, car, etc as the metric then I would expect to be roundly criticized. Instead I look for something that speaks more about people and beliefs.
Mooney12
Your not anti- American, your ill informed and a willing victim of someones biases.
Back to the video. If its true that the farmer was toting weapons, does he then become a legit target? Beagle I would like to hear your answer. You weren't there I know but you condemned the action from the arm chair without all the facts, so you should feel equally free to admit your were wrong.
My conclusions on Beagle are not based on his likes or dislikes of a particular piece of equipment or who resides in the White House, thats fair game. It is a deeper sense I find with him. Ranging from social commentary to daily life in America. If I used preference of aircraft, car, etc as the metric then I would expect to be roundly criticized. Instead I look for something that speaks more about people and beliefs.
Mooney12
Your not anti- American, your ill informed and a willing victim of someones biases.
Back to the video. If its true that the farmer was toting weapons, does he then become a legit target? Beagle I would like to hear your answer. You weren't there I know but you condemned the action from the arm chair without all the facts, so you should feel equally free to admit your were wrong.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG Trust me WestCoast I am not 'ill-informed' or a 'willing victim of someone elses biases'. Less of the patronising remarks please. I follow politics closely and have based my OWN views on the daily carnage I see on TV. George Bush is stupid - fact. He is right wing - fact. He is obsessed with war and particularly Iraq - fact! He is like a deer in bright headlights when asked questions without his advisors telling him what to say- fact.
I am a big fan of Bill Clinton and I hope John Kerry gets the chance to emulate his success by replacing the incompetance and extremism that is George Bush.
A further note on George W. While governor of Texas he executed more prisoners that any previous governor of Texas or any governor of any other state.
I am a big fan of Bill Clinton and I hope John Kerry gets the chance to emulate his success by replacing the incompetance and extremism that is George Bush.
A further note on George W. While governor of Texas he executed more prisoners that any previous governor of Texas or any governor of any other state.
Mooney12
You have a hard time defining opinion from fact.
If we are at war, yes I want my President engrossed in it.
The general definition of a right wing type is a conservitive Republican. He and I share that same stereotype in your mind.
As to your other comments about the US military. How do you come to the conclusion that we are generally hill billys? I was a member of said force, as was your boy Kerry. I guarantee neither of us was a hill billy. Did Clinton go to Vietnam? No he didn't nor do I think its an issue, just the same. John McCain is a conservitive Republican, he spent just a little bit of time there.
What does the death penalty have to do with Bush? Clinton supported it at both state and Federal levels. One of the leading groups opposing the death penalty in the (the New Abolitionist) damns the Clintons policies for tripling the rate of executions.
Time for a little more informed research on your part.
You have a hard time defining opinion from fact.
If we are at war, yes I want my President engrossed in it.
The general definition of a right wing type is a conservitive Republican. He and I share that same stereotype in your mind.
As to your other comments about the US military. How do you come to the conclusion that we are generally hill billys? I was a member of said force, as was your boy Kerry. I guarantee neither of us was a hill billy. Did Clinton go to Vietnam? No he didn't nor do I think its an issue, just the same. John McCain is a conservitive Republican, he spent just a little bit of time there.
What does the death penalty have to do with Bush? Clinton supported it at both state and Federal levels. One of the leading groups opposing the death penalty in the (the New Abolitionist) damns the Clintons policies for tripling the rate of executions.
Time for a little more informed research on your part.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a world of difference between Clinton and Bush, an absolute world of difference. Clinton may not have been in a war, but at least he isnt obsessed with it. At least he had the intelligence to realise that Iraq was no threat. The issue here is not the death penalty, but simply an example to demonstrate Bush's personality. As for Kerry being "my guy", he's not, but anybody is better than Bush.
As for my difficulty in differentiating between fact and opinion. Bush is stupid, that is fact. Anyone who cannot provide an attempt at an answer to the question "what is your biggest mistake since 9/11", is stupid. For godsake I have a notepad with a bunch of dumb Bush statements at the top of every page. Quotes include
"most of our imports come from outside America". He is stupid.
As for my "hill billy" comments. I stated that was a definate generalisation.
As for my difficulty in differentiating between fact and opinion. Bush is stupid, that is fact. Anyone who cannot provide an attempt at an answer to the question "what is your biggest mistake since 9/11", is stupid. For godsake I have a notepad with a bunch of dumb Bush statements at the top of every page. Quotes include
"most of our imports come from outside America". He is stupid.
As for my "hill billy" comments. I stated that was a definate generalisation.
You said at least one thing correctly, there is a world of difference between Clinton and Bush. Thank god.
Tell me, what good is a definate generalization? From where do you draw your knowledge about the make up of the US military?
I await Beagle answering my follow on question.
Tell me, what good is a definate generalization? From where do you draw your knowledge about the make up of the US military?
I await Beagle answering my follow on question.
Irrelevant of what unit executed this action.
In the absence of their TOE's this video records murder.
The US Military needs to change focus from tech assets to its action on the ground.
In short, they're f***ed when their battery fails.
In the absence of their TOE's this video records murder.
The US Military needs to change focus from tech assets to its action on the ground.
In short, they're f***ed when their battery fails.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WestCoast,
You are perhaps right. The US military is not made up of hill billy's. Although I did not mean that in the first place.
Perhaps I should change my language:
"The US military is made up of trigger happy soldiers, who "shoot anything that moves" ".
Is that more realistic?
Mooney
You are perhaps right. The US military is not made up of hill billy's. Although I did not mean that in the first place.
Perhaps I should change my language:
"The US military is made up of trigger happy soldiers, who "shoot anything that moves" ".
Is that more realistic?
Mooney
No its not mooney.
Do you purport to have the beat of the million plus US military?
"You are perhaps right. The US military is not made up of hill billy's. Although I did not mean that in the first place"
Why would you type it if you didn't mean it? Your credibility comes in to question now. Seems your either a troll or simply one who puts the mouth in gear before the brain.
Do you purport to have the beat of the million plus US military?
"You are perhaps right. The US military is not made up of hill billy's. Although I did not mean that in the first place"
Why would you type it if you didn't mean it? Your credibility comes in to question now. Seems your either a troll or simply one who puts the mouth in gear before the brain.
Hello, West Coast. My apology for the delay in answering you, but I've had very little internet access over the last few days.
I can accept that the Apache attack on the specified target was legitimate if it was known that these were enemy combatants. Hopefully they weren't anti-Saddam militia.
But I do NOT accept that the deliberate murder of the injured man was in any way acceptable.
I'm still waiting for the precise reasons why that bumbling idiot Dubya and the slimy poodle Bliar went to war - as are millions of others. I'd thought that, if good Americans like Colin Powell had sound reasons to convince Dubya, then there must have been some clear and unequivocal hard intelligence. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that yet though.
As for your other views of what you perceive to be my 'un-American' views:
1. The 767 tanker scandal speaks for itself.
2. The Iraqi prisoner abuse is a scandal. But I'm certainly prepared to accept that it was the result of the acts of a few isolated sadists, not the outcome of a general culture.
I was also frankly appalled at the change of attitude at the multi-national base where I was regularly detached during my last couple of years in the military. The US forces had become deliberately provocative towards the Iraqis, itching to shoot at the first excuse. The attitude of some of the ANG F-16 units was beyond belief: "You guys better stir us up some action today or we'll be going home without having bombed anything". And that's a direct quote.
Yes, I have some negative views about the US. But plenty of positive ones as well.
And sign up to Kyoto!
I can accept that the Apache attack on the specified target was legitimate if it was known that these were enemy combatants. Hopefully they weren't anti-Saddam militia.
But I do NOT accept that the deliberate murder of the injured man was in any way acceptable.
I'm still waiting for the precise reasons why that bumbling idiot Dubya and the slimy poodle Bliar went to war - as are millions of others. I'd thought that, if good Americans like Colin Powell had sound reasons to convince Dubya, then there must have been some clear and unequivocal hard intelligence. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that yet though.
As for your other views of what you perceive to be my 'un-American' views:
1. The 767 tanker scandal speaks for itself.
2. The Iraqi prisoner abuse is a scandal. But I'm certainly prepared to accept that it was the result of the acts of a few isolated sadists, not the outcome of a general culture.
I was also frankly appalled at the change of attitude at the multi-national base where I was regularly detached during my last couple of years in the military. The US forces had become deliberately provocative towards the Iraqis, itching to shoot at the first excuse. The attitude of some of the ANG F-16 units was beyond belief: "You guys better stir us up some action today or we'll be going home without having bombed anything". And that's a direct quote.
Yes, I have some negative views about the US. But plenty of positive ones as well.
And sign up to Kyoto!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not my credibilty thats in question, but the US militarys. I don't purport to have the "beat" of the entire US military. However when Britain goes to war with America it always seems strange to me that British soldiers are many times more scared of over zealous pilled up US pilots than they are of the actual enemy. Videos such as this don't help my opinion either.
If this is the way they treat tourists, it's hardly surprising that some of them treat real prisoners even worse:
US claps British tourists in irons
The Foreign Office is investigating a surge in complaints about the heavy-handed treatment of British visitors to America by US immigration officers.
Tourists and business travellers have been detained for hours — sometimes in handcuffs or leg chains — and then denied entry into the country for minor transgressions, some of which have turned out to be unfounded.
Some have been deported after being falsely accused of having terrorist links. Dozens of other visitors have complained about aggressive behaviour from airport officials.
A security crackdown in the wake of the September 11 atrocities in 2001 has led to a general rise in the number of complaints about US immigration, but last week the Foreign Office said it had been contacted by about 100 concerned Britons in the past 12 months.
A number of British travellers who claim to have been mistreated have raised their concerns with The Sunday Times.
Savinder Bual, 28, from Merton, south London, flew to America at the end of March to make an educational film. On arriving at New York’s JFK airport, she was separated from her colleagues and quizzed by an immigration officer about a trip to San Francisco she had made in 1996.
“He asked me how long I had been in San Francisco that time and I explained that I had stayed three months in my university holidays,” said Bual.
“Then he said, ‘You do know how many days are in a month? A waiver is only for 90 days and you stayed three months.’ He seemed very smug that he had actually found something to pin on me.”
The officer claimed Bual had overstayed by four days and ignored the fact that she had visited America again in 1998 without the issue being raised. Her feet were shackled and she was held in a detention room overnight.
The humiliating experience reduced Bual to tears and she was deported 12 hours after her arrival in New York. But she has since discovered from an old diary that she had not overstayed in 1996. “I was shocked to think this goes on and I hope that the Americans realise they cannot treat people like this,” she said.
Another victim is Neil Forrester, 33, chief technical officer of an IT firm in Brighton. He was held by immigration officers at Los Angeles airport in February 2003.
Forrester, who was travelling with his daughter and pregnant wife, had his passport stolen during a visit to America in 1996 which meant that the immigration services had no record of him leaving the country on that occasion.
Accused of overstaying, Forrester was handcuffed in front of his family and led to a detention room where he was photographed, fingerprinted and body-searched. He was not allowed to call his wife or a lawyer and was deported after 24 hours. He is now banned from entering America for 10 years.
“This is a real problem as my wife and daughter are both US citizens and I can’t visit our family over there,” he said.
British citizens of Asian origin, particularly Muslims, appear to have been affected the most by the security clampdown. Adam Riaz Khan, 24, from Enfield, north London, was detained in February at Atlanta airport while in transit from Mexico to Britain.
“They asked whether I had been to Iraq, Iran, Somalia or Afghanistan, and when they found the Koran in my bag I could see they thought they were on to something,” he said. “They insisted that Bin Laden was my uncle and asked me if I thought America should be an Islamic state.”
Riaz Khan, who had been on holiday in Mexico for a month, was also asked if he knew how to make bombs. He was deported to London after being questioned for seven hours.
The Foreign Office says it is seeking an explanation from the US authorities about each complaint. British officials and their counterparts from other European Union countries have also jointly raised concerns “at various levels” in America.
“We take seriously complaints from British nationals about treatment they have received from American immigration,” a spokesman said. “But the Americans decide their policy.” Some 4m Britons visit the US each year.
The US Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for immigration, said its officers were fair and professional and would correct any errors they had made.
(From today's Sunday Times)
Land of the what......?
US claps British tourists in irons
The Foreign Office is investigating a surge in complaints about the heavy-handed treatment of British visitors to America by US immigration officers.
Tourists and business travellers have been detained for hours — sometimes in handcuffs or leg chains — and then denied entry into the country for minor transgressions, some of which have turned out to be unfounded.
Some have been deported after being falsely accused of having terrorist links. Dozens of other visitors have complained about aggressive behaviour from airport officials.
A security crackdown in the wake of the September 11 atrocities in 2001 has led to a general rise in the number of complaints about US immigration, but last week the Foreign Office said it had been contacted by about 100 concerned Britons in the past 12 months.
A number of British travellers who claim to have been mistreated have raised their concerns with The Sunday Times.
Savinder Bual, 28, from Merton, south London, flew to America at the end of March to make an educational film. On arriving at New York’s JFK airport, she was separated from her colleagues and quizzed by an immigration officer about a trip to San Francisco she had made in 1996.
“He asked me how long I had been in San Francisco that time and I explained that I had stayed three months in my university holidays,” said Bual.
“Then he said, ‘You do know how many days are in a month? A waiver is only for 90 days and you stayed three months.’ He seemed very smug that he had actually found something to pin on me.”
The officer claimed Bual had overstayed by four days and ignored the fact that she had visited America again in 1998 without the issue being raised. Her feet were shackled and she was held in a detention room overnight.
The humiliating experience reduced Bual to tears and she was deported 12 hours after her arrival in New York. But she has since discovered from an old diary that she had not overstayed in 1996. “I was shocked to think this goes on and I hope that the Americans realise they cannot treat people like this,” she said.
Another victim is Neil Forrester, 33, chief technical officer of an IT firm in Brighton. He was held by immigration officers at Los Angeles airport in February 2003.
Forrester, who was travelling with his daughter and pregnant wife, had his passport stolen during a visit to America in 1996 which meant that the immigration services had no record of him leaving the country on that occasion.
Accused of overstaying, Forrester was handcuffed in front of his family and led to a detention room where he was photographed, fingerprinted and body-searched. He was not allowed to call his wife or a lawyer and was deported after 24 hours. He is now banned from entering America for 10 years.
“This is a real problem as my wife and daughter are both US citizens and I can’t visit our family over there,” he said.
British citizens of Asian origin, particularly Muslims, appear to have been affected the most by the security clampdown. Adam Riaz Khan, 24, from Enfield, north London, was detained in February at Atlanta airport while in transit from Mexico to Britain.
“They asked whether I had been to Iraq, Iran, Somalia or Afghanistan, and when they found the Koran in my bag I could see they thought they were on to something,” he said. “They insisted that Bin Laden was my uncle and asked me if I thought America should be an Islamic state.”
Riaz Khan, who had been on holiday in Mexico for a month, was also asked if he knew how to make bombs. He was deported to London after being questioned for seven hours.
The Foreign Office says it is seeking an explanation from the US authorities about each complaint. British officials and their counterparts from other European Union countries have also jointly raised concerns “at various levels” in America.
“We take seriously complaints from British nationals about treatment they have received from American immigration,” a spokesman said. “But the Americans decide their policy.” Some 4m Britons visit the US each year.
The US Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for immigration, said its officers were fair and professional and would correct any errors they had made.
(From today's Sunday Times)
Land of the what......?
Last edited by BEagle; 16th May 2004 at 12:37.
"some of which have turned out to be unfounded"
So some of it was with merit. As far as the land of the free, absolutely. However not without some vetting of foreigners and locals. Other than the shock of 911 I have noticed no changes to my personal freedoms. I come and go as I please with reasonable ease. I dont have to carry a national ID card, You may in the near future. I dont have cameras watching my every move as I stroll down main street.
Maybe they thought you were exporting your soccor hooligans. Or the next Richard Reid or other unsavory Brits.
A newspaper article you C&P somehow equates to the prisioner scandel and a general condemnation from you. You are simply trolling for a fight aren't you?
Has the Brit pictures been found to be fake by those who dearly dont want to admit the UK's possible culpability to the same as the US?
Even if they are fake, all we learned about prisioner abuse came from your boys in H block. No torture went on there did it Beagle? May I reccomend a good book? Read "The British Dimension" by Denis Faul and Raymond Murray. It might be an eye opener about British prision abuse and torture in NI. Your lot were excellent teachers.
So some of it was with merit. As far as the land of the free, absolutely. However not without some vetting of foreigners and locals. Other than the shock of 911 I have noticed no changes to my personal freedoms. I come and go as I please with reasonable ease. I dont have to carry a national ID card, You may in the near future. I dont have cameras watching my every move as I stroll down main street.
Maybe they thought you were exporting your soccor hooligans. Or the next Richard Reid or other unsavory Brits.
A newspaper article you C&P somehow equates to the prisioner scandel and a general condemnation from you. You are simply trolling for a fight aren't you?
Has the Brit pictures been found to be fake by those who dearly dont want to admit the UK's possible culpability to the same as the US?
Even if they are fake, all we learned about prisioner abuse came from your boys in H block. No torture went on there did it Beagle? May I reccomend a good book? Read "The British Dimension" by Denis Faul and Raymond Murray. It might be an eye opener about British prision abuse and torture in NI. Your lot were excellent teachers.
Gaff and net please, ghilly!
Err, 'some' means 'a few', not 'generally'.....
If they were football hooligans, thanks and please keep them!
Do your 'drivers' licences have photo id on them? Ours don't. A one-for-all credit card ID that serves for passport, driving licence and everything else requiring proof of identity would be quite handy - hopefully we'll get them one day.
Err, 'some' means 'a few', not 'generally'.....
If they were football hooligans, thanks and please keep them!
Do your 'drivers' licences have photo id on them? Ours don't. A one-for-all credit card ID that serves for passport, driving licence and everything else requiring proof of identity would be quite handy - hopefully we'll get them one day.