Shaker shocker
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 oldcodger  01 Nov 15 4.05pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| stevegood 01 Nov 15 4.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 01 Nov 15 5.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| stevegood 01 Nov 15 6.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 5.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm) Jamal al Harith was one of the 150 considered 'innocent'. After being released and returning to the UK, he pocketed £1 million of our money in 'compensation' and went off to Syria to join ISIS for a bit of beheading, burning people alive, raping women and throwing homosexuals off buildings.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 01 Nov 15 6.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 6.28pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 5.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm) Jamal al Harith was one of the 150 considered 'innocent'. After being released and returning to the UK, he pocketed £1 million of our money in 'compensation' and went off to Syria to join ISIS for a bit of beheading, burning people alive, raping women and throwing homosexuals off buildings.
Again the US acknowledge that lots of these people were farmers and the like, guilty of absolutely nothing to their knowledge. Many handed in as part of the flawed cash incentive bounty system. Your threshold for imprisoning people without charge appears to be zero proof of anything, no moral judgement of torture or sexual violations, and a keep innocent people imprisoned 'just in case' outlook. That's closer to an ISIS mindset than a western one. You gazed too long into an abyss.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| stevegood 01 Nov 15 7.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 6.39pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 6.28pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 5.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm) Jamal al Harith was one of the 150 considered 'innocent'. After being released and returning to the UK, he pocketed £1 million of our money in 'compensation' and went off to Syria to join ISIS for a bit of beheading, burning people alive, raping women and throwing homosexuals off buildings.
Again the US acknowledge that lots of these people were farmers and the like, guilty of absolutely nothing to their knowledge. Many handed in as part of the flawed cash incentive bounty system. Your threshold for imprisoning people without charge appears to be zero proof of anything, no moral judgement of torture or sexual violations, and a keep innocent people there 'just in case' outlook. That's closer to an ISIS mindset than a western one. You gazed too long into an abyss.
Of course they are individual people. They are all Muslims, and Islam is a very backward, intolerant and dangerous belief system - and no, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists. You use words like 'countless' and 'lots' again when the supposed innocent are not that many. If they were innocent, it is very regrettable that they were imprisoned and possibly mistreated. Not sure by the way that being a farmer necessarily means that you can't also be a terrorist. My threshold for imprisoning people in a war situation is to err on the side of caution to protect our interests. I'll let you have the last word on this as I don't intend to answer any more post on this, it is pointless. I started this thread as a discussion of one individual, Shaker Aamer, who I think is highly likely a terrorist who is a danger to this country, rather than the returning hero that the New Left present him as.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| stevegood 01 Nov 15 7.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 7.48pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 6.39pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 6.28pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 5.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm) Jamal al Harith was one of the 150 considered 'innocent'. After being released and returning to the UK, he pocketed £1 million of our money in 'compensation' and went off to Syria to join ISIS for a bit of beheading, burning people alive, raping women and throwing homosexuals off buildings.
Again the US acknowledge that lots of these people were farmers and the like, guilty of absolutely nothing to their knowledge. Many handed in as part of the flawed cash incentive bounty system. Your threshold for imprisoning people without charge appears to be zero proof of anything, no moral judgement of torture or sexual violations, and a keep innocent people there 'just in case' outlook. That's closer to an ISIS mindset than a western one. You gazed too long into an abyss.
Of course they are individual people. They are all Muslims, and Islam is a very backward, intolerant and dangerous belief system - and no, before you ask, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists. You use words like 'countless' and 'lots' again when the supposed innocent are not that many. If they were innocent, it is very regrettable that they were imprisoned and possibly mistreated. Not sure by the way that being a farmer necessarily means that you can't also be a terrorist. My threshold for imprisoning people in a war situation is to err on the side of caution to protect our interests. I'll let you have the last word on this as I don't intend to answer any more post on this, it is pointless. I started this thread as a discussion of one individual, Shaker Aamer, who I think is highly likely a terrorist who is a danger to this country, rather than the returning hero that the New Left present him as.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 01 Nov 15 7.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 7.49pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 7.48pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 6.39pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 6.28pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 5.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm) Jamal al Harith was one of the 150 considered 'innocent'. After being released and returning to the UK, he pocketed £1 million of our money in 'compensation' and went off to Syria to join ISIS for a bit of beheading, burning people alive, raping women and throwing homosexuals off buildings.
Again the US acknowledge that lots of these people were farmers and the like, guilty of absolutely nothing to their knowledge. Many handed in as part of the flawed cash incentive bounty system. Your threshold for imprisoning people without charge appears to be zero proof of anything, no moral judgement of torture or sexual violations, and a keep innocent people there 'just in case' outlook. That's closer to an ISIS mindset than a western one. You gazed too long into an abyss.
Of course they are individual people. They are all Muslims, and Islam is a very backward, intolerant and dangerous belief system - and no, before you ask, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists. You use words like 'countless' and 'lots' again when the supposed innocent are not that many. If they were innocent, it is very regrettable that they were imprisoned and possibly mistreated. Not sure by the way that being a farmer necessarily means that you can't also be a terrorist. My threshold for imprisoning people in a war situation is to err on the side of caution to protect our interests. I'll let you have the last word on this as I don't intend to answer any more post on this, it is pointless. I started this thread as a discussion of one individual, Shaker Aamer, who I think is highly likely a terrorist who is a danger to this country, rather than the returning hero that the New Left present him as. I'm happy to let you have that as the last word Steve, so have a good remainder of the weekend.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 02 Nov 15 10.57am | |
|---|---|
|
stevegood and oldcodger......... STOP and consider this thought........ 1. "Crop" your posts by deleting previous posts that are unnecessary. 2. Why are you both typing in italics? Makes it harder to read and italics should be reserved for quotations within your posts. Because you don't crop your posts it makes it tedious to navigate through your extended arguments and uses much more space on the HOL servers. All you need is the text of the post you are arguing with, you don't need all the previous ones!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 02 Nov 15 11.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 7.53pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 7.49pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 7.48pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 6.39pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 6.28pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 5.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 4.05pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.41pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 3.30pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 3.10pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 2.29pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 2.09pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.59pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 01 Nov 2015 1.40pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.34pm
Quote stevegood at 01 Nov 2015 1.29pm
Quote oldcodger at 01 Nov 2015 1.19pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Our allies shouldn't seek to bypass the need for trial and just abduct and lock people up, many of whom the US themselves acknowledge in leaked documents are very likely completely innocent. It seems in your quest to 'protect the innocent' you don't mind if innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and fed through their arseholes via 'rectal feeding' as an enhanced interrogation technique, so sexually abused too. Gitmo is a lawless hell hole. Even a solider posing as a prisoner as part of a training exercise there was beaten so badly he received a significant brain injury. Guilt didn't determine the treatment that people received. Be sickened by that. It's a similar situation to Abu Ghraib, where it was retrospectively viewed that vast numbers of prisoners were not Taliban or al-Qaeda or in fact guilty of anything, just unfortunates caught up in the incredibly flawed bounty system that was throwing money at people. Many tortured there died or killed themselves. The treatment of those innocents doesn't 'sicken you' then? I wonder why. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 1.22pm) very likely completely innocent[/i Did the wicked Westerners chop any of their heads off or burn them alive in a cage.
They show that about 220 were classed as dangerous terrorists, but 150 were innocent Afghans and pakistanis. The Pentagon said the files' release could damage anti-terrorism efforts. At least 150 people were revealed to be innocent Afghans or pakistanis - including drivers, farmers and chefs - rounded up during intelligence gathering operations in the aftermath of 9/11. The detainees were then held for years owing to mistaken identity or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the memos say. In many cases, US commanders concluded there was "no reason recorded for transfer".
Why did he travel on a false Belgian passport? What charity was he actually working for? That would be for a court to decide. Neither of those things are grounds for imprisoning him indefinitely without trial. The Bush administration stated that it had no evidence against him and he was cleared for transfer in 2007. If they truly saw him as a danger I very much doubt they would have. If they want to make a case as to his guilt they should do so and if he's guilty then throw away the key. None of this legitimises abducting and torturing innocent people which is the wider picture. I would've thought that was something that should at least be a cursory concern to us. If we are saying that he should be locked up forever without trial we are saying that all of that is okay too. It isn't.
You keep saying that the US Government admitted they are holding innocent people - here is a much more balanced analysis of the leaked documents. This was a good read and it's to be expected with this number of people that some released are not who they seem and those in Gitmo are sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. The article itself acknowledges that innocents were held and worrying that "assessments acknowledge the hazards of rewarding detainees for information" and of course torture played a role, so it makes it so difficult to know what to believe. I 'keep saying' that countless inmates were innocent because that was the analyse and conclusion of the US behind closed doors. It's their own findings and my whole point is that when people say that we need to 'protect the innocents' and how they are sickened by his release, they are saying that this system of lawlessness which resulted in the capture, imprisonment and torture of innocent people is fine.
The analysis and conclusion was also that dangerous terrorists were released who were presumed to be innocent. It also says that only the hard-core suspects like Shaker Aamer were detained for long periods. By the way your 'system of lawlessness' is the reality of war - just like people being beheaded and burnt alive in cages. Yes, as I said they were sometimes less or more of a threat than is understood. With such a number of people of course that is going to be the case. None of that gets away from the fact again as stated in the US intelligence that vast numbers are thought to be innocent. We're going to a whole new level if we go from saying we can imprison people indefinitely and assume guilt with insufficient evidence, or evidence obtained through torture or rewards.. to then saying that even if we never have any evidence 'they might have been guilty anyway', as if that proves that what happened prior was okay. You don't need to throw away your values and system of law just because there are monsters in the world. Instead you ensure that you yourself do not become one. Your first comment when I mentioned that the States themselves acknowledge the innocence of many in Gitmo was 'LOL'. Many innocent people were abducted, imprisoned, sexually abused and tortured. If you think that's 'a reality' from our side that I have to approve of or laugh at you are wrong. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 3.31pm) Vast numbers? The West is at war with militant Islam and I am on the side of the West and am not overly concerned how the enemy is treated as much of the claims of torture etc is enemy propaganda. However, I would far rather be a prisoner of Western powers than a prisoner of militant Islamists. I'm pretty sure we're not at war with the significant number of individuals who did nothing wrong, but were tortured and imprisoned by the our side for years anyway. I'm glad however that you appear to have volunteered to go to Gitmo. Good luck with the 'rectal feedings' and frequent beatings. If you're lucky maybe you'll confess to something and your guilt will no longer be in doubt. No doubt Sean Baker who posed in the role of a prisoner, was beaten severely by his own countrymen sufering traumatic brain injury, has a more real world outlook of the rights and wrongs of beating the s*** out of innocent people. But nevermind all that hey because it's a race to the bottom. Just about any behaviour can be justified if you solely judge yourself against the worst of the worst, rather than actually stand for something.
This line of demonising the West and making excuses for terrorists makes me laugh - as it no doubt makes our homegrown Islamic extremists too. You continually go on about alleged torture and atrocities by our side in the war but never say anything about the barbarity of the likes if ISIS. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be worse to be a prisoner in the West than in an Islamic country? I see your 'vast' numbers is now done to 'significant' numbers - any advance on significant? Are you Moazzam Begg in disguise? Feeling that it's unfortunate that many innocent people have been imprisoned and tortured is not 'making excuses for terrorists'. In fact it is supporting people who have been terrorised. It is also defending western law and ideals not 'demonising the west'. You're the one who wants to deconstruct western systems of law. Pointing out that even a US serviceman impersonating a Gitmo inmnate ended up braindamaged through severe beating is not 'making excuses for terrorists', it's tragic, disgusting and highlights the level of mistreatment people received regardless of guilt. What on earth do you think I think about ISIS? On the battleground I am as happy as anyone when they are taken out and where we can prove that people here are trying to further their aims lock them up and throw away the key. You don't however randomly scoop people up as part of a bounty system which we know incentivised handing over people regardless of guilt. We don't imprison or torture people on a hunch. Do that and you become what you hate. As for numbers 'vast', significant' we know that the US deemed 150 of the 780 innocent, 380 low ranking and 220 dangerous so it is what it is. And this is just those at Gitmo. Apparently my dislike of innocent people being tortured to you means that I'm defending terrorists. You're the one who keeping 'LOLing' at such things mate. Edited by oldcodger (01 Nov 2015 6.14pm) Jamal al Harith was one of the 150 considered 'innocent'. After being released and returning to the UK, he pocketed £1 million of our money in 'compensation' and went off to Syria to join ISIS for a bit of beheading, burning people alive, raping women and throwing homosexuals off buildings.
Again the US acknowledge that lots of these people were farmers and the like, guilty of absolutely nothing to their knowledge. Many handed in as part of the flawed cash incentive bounty system. Your threshold for imprisoning people without charge appears to be zero proof of anything, no moral judgement of torture or sexual violations, and a keep innocent people there 'just in case' outlook. That's closer to an ISIS mindset than a western one. You gazed too long into an abyss.
Of course they are individual people. They are all Muslims, and Islam is a very backward, intolerant and dangerous belief system - and no, before you ask, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists. You use words like 'countless' and 'lots' again when the supposed innocent are not that many. If they were innocent, it is very regrettable that they were imprisoned and possibly mistreated. Not sure by the way that being a farmer necessarily means that you can't also be a terrorist. My threshold for imprisoning people in a war situation is to err on the side of caution to protect our interests. I'll let you have the last word on this as I don't intend to answer any more post on this, it is pointless. I started this thread as a discussion of one individual, Shaker Aamer, who I think is highly likely a terrorist who is a danger to this country, rather than the returning hero that the New Left present him as. I'm happy to let you have that as the last word Steve, so have a good remainder of the weekend.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 02 Nov 15 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 02 Nov 2015 10.57am
stevegood and oldcodger......... STOP and consider this thought........ 1. "Crop" your posts by deleting previous posts that are unnecessary. 2. Why are you both typing in italics? Makes it harder to read and italics should be reserved for quotations within your posts. Because you don't crop your posts it makes it tedious to navigate through your extended arguments and uses much more space on the HOL servers. All you need is the text of the post you are arguing with, you don't need all the previous ones!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Nov 15 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 01 Nov 2015 10.47am
This guy has terrorist written all over him and is biding his time to strike at some point in the future. Funnily enough Shaker Aamer is an old friend of Moazzam Begg. Which is interesting not least because at Gitmo, Begg himself identified Aamer as a ‘recruiter for al-Qaeda’. He said that Aamer had fought in Bosnia and had been a member of the jihadist group run by Abu Zubair al-Haili (a senior al-Qaeda operative from Saudi Arabia) and had among other things spent ’30 days training on the AK-47 and rocket propelled grenades’. Seven separate sources at Guantanamo also described Aamer’s connections to al-Qaeda.
Utter nonsense, and a deflection from the issue, whether or not a free and democratic society should endorse or support the indefinite detention of people without trial or even the chance to put their case for any accusation or crime.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.