FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Torture - But America At It's Worse Is America At It's Best
Torture - But America At It's Worse Is America At It's Best
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Feinstein has today released her long awaited report on the 'enhanced' CIA interrogation tactics used in the shadow of 9 11.
It's damning. America should be ashamed. It tortured prisoners and in the process broke it's own laws, it also lost much of its self perceived moral high ground.
I would though like to comment on the fact that few countries would embarrass themselves so publicly and openly. The honesty of the report and it's public airing is in itself a credit to them.
The good the bad and the ugly of the US wrapped up in one story.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes I couldn't agree more.
A great concept of how to start a country that's been undermined for a hundred years by the very people elected to preserve it.
I think the usa would have turned out better if they hadn't had an elected government for that time but just relied upon their constitution and bill of rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's an unfortunate part of the American experiment that their most enlightened thinking, most self critical and defiantly progressive, will inevitably be used as ammunition by people who hate America for whatever reason, whether legitimate or not. This report, itself, will probably end up being enthusiastically reprinted by Isis and Al-Qaeda for years to come. That's why the right wing in the US are so concerned with stuff like this being shared with the worild... But yes...I couldn't agree more... a disgusting episode in their history now feels like it's coming to an end with such an admission that they've done wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fox News is putting a nice spin on this..Lol what don't they put a nice spin on"
.
What's the old guys name who does fox news, bit of a religious war monger... He's so crap he's actually funny.
Bill something.
I once saw him interview hitchins on Christian values... He lasted about 3 minutes before being so shot down, he got all arsey and threw hitch of the show  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fox News is putting a nice spin on this..Lol what don't they put a nice spin on.
What's the old guys name who does fox news, bit of a religious war monger... He's so crap he's actually funny.
Bill something.
I once saw him interview hitchins on Christian values... He lasted about 3 minutes before being so shot down, he got all arsey and threw hitch of the show "
O'Reily? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fox News is putting a nice spin on this..Lol what don't they put a nice spin on.
What's the old guys name who does fox news, bit of a religious war monger... He's so crap he's actually funny.
Bill something.
I once saw him interview hitchins on Christian values... He lasted about 3 minutes before being so shot down, he got all arsey and threw hitch of the show
O'Reily?"
.
Yeah bill O'Riley that's him.
He makes me chuckle.
But not in a good way  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The British taught the Americans all they know about holding people without trial and torture. "
.
Yeah we came up with concentration camps long before them fecking Germans nicked our patent pending idea |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often."
You win the forums for today....
No, fuck it - its the best post I have read in months.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often."
Good post (ish)
But after 9/11 (remember that was before Afghanistan & Iraq) I think sometimes we need to, as they say, cut them a bit of slack.
The Yanks are far from perfect but I'm glad they are on our side (ish) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory.. "
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
"
Because we claim to be civilised and condemn their actions which now appears a little hypocritical, to say the least.
Possibly the most important fact gleaned so far appears to be that the torture produced no intelligence whatsoever that wasn't already known. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often.
Good post (ish)
But after 9/11 (remember that was before Afghanistan & Iraq) I think sometimes we need to, as they say, cut them a bit of slack.
The Yanks are far from perfect but I'm glad they are on our side (ish)"
So the British police deserved a bit of slack when they were torturing and wrongly accusing The Irish in the 70's? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often.
Good post (ish)
But after 9/11 (remember that was before Afghanistan & Iraq) I think sometimes we need to, as they say, cut them a bit of slack.
The Yanks are far from perfect but I'm glad they are on our side (ish)
So the British police deserved a bit of slack when they were torturing and wrongly accusing The Irish in the 70's? "
.
As proved by that episode in history, you can't shoot an ideology down, only by exposing the grotesque message can you hope to change the messenger.
Having said that I don't think the British police or army received "slack" in the end |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often.
Good post (ish)
But after 9/11 (remember that was before Afghanistan & Iraq) I think sometimes we need to, as they say, cut them a bit of slack.
The Yanks are far from perfect but I'm glad they are on our side (ish)
So the British police deserved a bit of slack when they were torturing and wrongly accusing The Irish in the 70's? .
As proved by that episode in history, you can't shoot an ideology down, only by exposing the grotesque message can you hope to change the messenger.
Having said that I don't think the British police or army received "slack" in the end"
I didn't say they received any slack, I asked if they deserved any! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often.
Good post (ish)
But after 9/11 (remember that was before Afghanistan & Iraq) I think sometimes we need to, as they say, cut them a bit of slack.
The Yanks are far from perfect but I'm glad they are on our side (ish)
So the British police deserved a bit of slack when they were torturing and wrongly accusing The Irish in the 70's? .
As proved by that episode in history, you can't shoot an ideology down, only by exposing the grotesque message can you hope to change the messenger.
Having said that I don't think the British police or army received "slack" in the end
I didn't say they received any slack, I asked if they deserved any!"
.
No I meant they didn't and nor should they.
It does make me wonder why people get really irate about a few people getting tortured, but 500,000 Iraqis being blown to shit, and the wide scale use of cluster bombs, phosphorus and depleted uranium went by unnoticed.
Don't get me wrong, I was and remain in the main very pro the middle East intervention, but not necessarily a fan of how we went about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
"
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Read a book called 'Talking to Terrorists' by Peter Taylor, not only does it tell the story of the lines of communication that were kept open between the UK Government and the IRA but also the vastly differing levels of success that the FBI and CIA had with extracting useful intelligence from prisoners. Guess which one relied on talking, rather than torture? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Today's admission will definitely come back to bite at some point. Those that have choosen to behead westerners will feel justified.
The abhorrent behaviour of the CIA doesn't represent our values as today's admission proves. The extremists that are ISIS don't represent Muslims. I hope the moderates on both sides will be brought closer together by understanding that each sides extremists are a danger to each sides moderates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Let's not give the nut jobs on either side to much back slapping, those people that behead westerners would do it anyway with or without justification because there religious nut jobs.
Where as those nut jobs on our side do it for the money!!.
There's very few politicians who actually believe we did it for the right reasons, personally I don't think we did it for the right reasons either but some things are better off done than not.
If millions of Muslims get more democracy and freedoms from it, then just maybe it will be seen as a success. Maybe? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
It does make you wonder how far up and what potential consequences there might be. There was talk earlier this year of war crimes and select committees. If Bush gets put on the stand, Blair will have a very dark cloud looming over him. Peace envoy, you couldn't write it if his was complicit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let's not give the nut jobs on either side to much back slapping, those people that behead westerners would do it anyway with or without justification because there religious nut jobs.
Where as those nut jobs on our side do it for the money!!.
There's very few politicians who actually believe we did it for the right reasons, personally I don't think we did it for the right reasons either but some things are better off done than not.
If millions of Muslims get more democracy and freedoms from it, then just maybe it will be seen as a success. Maybe?"
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often."
I agree with most of your post, but I think you have got one part very wrong. The USA, UK France and China are not involved enough in Ukraine. Fact is when the Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal (at the time the 3rd largest in the world) the above countries plus Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine sovereignty. I would suggest that had The Ukraine kept their atomic weapons there would be no Russian troops in their country and Vlad would be playing nice with his neighbour rather than planning his next move in the annexation of that independent country.
As for the US torture inquiry I note that there are over 6000 pages of the report that have not been published. One has to ask, considering what has been published what was in them?!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"Let's not give the nut jobs on either side to much back slapping, those people that behead westerners would do it anyway with or without justification because there religious nut jobs.
Where as those nut jobs on our side do it for the money!!.
There's very few politicians who actually believe we did it for the right reasons, personally I don't think we did it for the right reasons either but some things are better off done than not.
If millions of Muslims get more democracy and freedoms from it, then just maybe it will be seen as a success. Maybe?
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. "
Even though no intelligence was gained from them.
Basically, knocking the fuck out of them to such extremes they didnt even know their own names. Yeah crack that democratic egg again! 
Crazy - it has put the western world in a worse position than when it started. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *illy7239Man
over a year ago
Stenhousemuir |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile
of shitbag scum call themselves this week
don't give a flying fuck about human rights
and international law. So when dealing with
them why the fuck should we?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As for the US torture inquiry I note that there are over 6000 pages of the report that have not been published. One has to ask, considering what has been published what was in them?!!!"
Names on Executive Orders, I imagine, amongst other things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Chickens / roost moment.
If you want to be the world's policeman you have to obey the world's laws before you enforce them. Its that simple. Guantanamo Bay was and still is a festering boil on not just the USA but us as well as we tacitly accepted it and by inference supported it. The USA created the perfect Jihadist recruitment centre by holding people without trial and using barbarous methods to extract information. Hitler's SS is alive and well in the USA. Would they be allowed to hold Jews or Christians this way? No so why Muslims? And when a Brit is released with no trial he sues us not the bloody Yanks!
Is it any wonder with the USA funding Israel to the tune of £3Billion a year to go and kill thousands of Palestinians and them running Guantanamo that someone had the idea of flying two planes into two buildings in New York?
I would have more respect for the Yanks if they didn't just ride roughshod over everyone else to impose the US 'Way of Life'. For example why are they even involved in the Ukraine issue? Its nothing to do with NATO but in they pile and so Putin gets all macho and fights back. Night follows day. Left to us in Europe I suspect we could have fashioned some sort of deal and if not well its a Ukraine problem not even ours.
And shame on Cameron, Brown and especially Blair for kissing arse for so long. Our Parliament showed that when we said 'No' to bombing Syrian civilians (I know it wasn't quite that) the Yanks take a step back. We should do it more often.
I agree with most of your post, but I think you have got one part very wrong. The USA, UK France and China are not involved enough in Ukraine. Fact is when the Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal (at the time the 3rd largest in the world) the above countries plus Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine sovereignty. I would suggest that had The Ukraine kept their atomic weapons there would be no Russian troops in their country and Vlad would be playing nice with his neighbour rather than planning his next move in the annexation of that independent country.
As for the US torture inquiry I note that there are over 6000 pages of the report that have not been published. One has to ask, considering what has been published what was in them?!!!"
.
If the Ukraine had kept the "Russian" nuclear weapons after the break up of the soviet union they would have been violating the non proliferation treaty of the UN..
Besides the weapons were no more Ukrainian than Chernobyl and given the choice I'm sure there'd love to give that back too.
You can't blame Russia too much when their enemies (that's us) keep getting closer and closer to their border.
How did America like it when Russia got with 50 miles of the US coast by using proxy counties... Oh yeah it was nearly ww3 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Some great posts on this. But can I add some thoughts? We cannot claim the moral, legal or any other 'high ground' if we (or we support those who) break every rule in the book. We only have to look at the problems in the USA with Police shooting unarmed black people and then nothing is done. People lose faith and can't trust those in authority. Therefore all authority breaks down. America is in a very dangerous place right now in its own back yard. And this report will fuel Black disquiet because they can say 'look this what our own Government is doing'.
Someone mentioned 9/11, Iraq etc. My point was that even BEFORE Iraq and Afghan. someone thought retribution was needed against the USA for all their support of the murdering Israelis. And what did the USA (and us sadly) do? We went and slaughtered many more thousands of Muslims and left Iraq in a dangerous condition. I can see a better outcome for Afghanistan but the Jihadis were still given a gift every time the Yanks had 'collateral damage'.
Sadly we have to be 'friends' with the USA because we need their trade to put it crudely but we should take a step back militarily especially in Muslim countries. Bottom line is if the USA really wanted to end all this it would say to the Israelis 'Enough! stop now or we take our money elsewhere'. Except no President or Congressman or Senator would get another Jewish vote .... And all the while the Israelis are stealing acres of land every day from the Palestinians and making any hopes of a two state solution impossible. We went to war in the Balkans because of ethnic cleansing of Muslims. But we turned away when it happened in Palestine.
Again shame on us.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the Ukraine had kept the "Russian" nuclear weapons after the break up of the soviet union they would have been violating the non proliferation treaty of the UN..
Besides the weapons were no more Ukrainian than Chernobyl and given the choice I'm sure there'd love to give that back too.
You can't blame Russia too much when their enemies (that's us) keep getting closer and closer to their border.
How did America like it when Russia got with 50 miles of the US coast by using proxy counties... Oh yeah it was nearly ww3"
Firstly, lets get things right, the weapons were not Russian they belonged to the USSR and after the breakup of that union the weapons were the property of all the republics and by default the property of the country that they were in. If that country was not part of the new Russian Federation than ownership passed from them.
Secondly after the fall of the USSR The Russian Federation was not our enemy, in fact every western country went out of its way to integrate Russia, it was only when an ex cold war KGB hero took control of The Russian Federation that we became an enemy again...
But what has anything to do with Russia got to do with CIA torture? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth.."
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Am I alone in thinking so what.
End of day some captured were sekf confesssed terrorists and so any method to extract info is ok if it saves just one life as decision to be terrorist was theirs.
Should they say there there old chap would you be so kind as to tell us who you were planning to bloe to pieces.
Get real folk like that should have no rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
"
Always remember were not the first to start cutting people's heads off or butchering a soldier in the street with a machete. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Am I alone in thinking so what.
End of day some captured were sekf confesssed terrorists and so any method to extract info is ok if it saves just one life as decision to be terrorist was theirs.
Should they say there there old chap would you be so kind as to tell us who you were planning to bloe to pieces.
Get real folk like that should have no rights."
I would quote MARTIN NIEMÖLLER (look it up, google is your friend) but I think it would be lost on you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Am I alone in thinking so what.
End of day some captured were sekf confesssed terrorists and so any method to extract info is ok if it saves just one life as decision to be terrorist was theirs.
Should they say there there old chap would you be so kind as to tell us who you were planning to bloe to pieces.
Get real folk like that should have no rights."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Am I alone in thinking so what.
End of day some captured were sekf confesssed terrorists and so any method to extract info is ok if it saves just one life as decision to be terrorist was theirs.
Should they say there there old chap would you be so kind as to tell us who you were planning to bloe to pieces.
Get real folk like that should have no rights."
I would hope that you are alone but sadly, as has already been confirmed, you're not.
Yes, SOME of those captured were terrorists, however many of them were not. They were just normal people dragged halfway round the world to places where US Law had no jurisdiction to be tortured.
Not one example of this torture led to any viable intelligence that had not been obtained previously by other methods (see my reference to Peter Taylor's book above), including actually talking to these people.
As for them having no rights, of course they have rights. The Geneva Convention says they have rights, The Human Rights Act says they have rights (in the case of Europeans who were taken) and US Law says they have rights, hence the fact that they were taken to neutral, covert territories and the need for this report became apparent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better."
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The basic right every man, woman and child has on this planet is that they are innocent until proven guilty and that they must be tried before their peers. If we adopt ANY other standard then we lose the argument. We must maintain OUR standards not the terrorists' distortions of the Law. Now that doesn't mean we don't use Special Forces to do some very dangerous missions to take out people that wish us harm because that is war. But to capture people and keep them detained in harsh and inhuman conditions without trial is just unlawful and we should be ashamed we condone what the Americans have done. And Obama should never have been re-elected because that was one BIG promise he failed to keep. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The basic right every man, woman and child has on this planet is that they are innocent until proven guilty and that they must be tried before their peers. If we adopt ANY other standard then we lose the argument. We must maintain OUR standards not the terrorists' distortions of the Law. Now that doesn't mean we don't use Special Forces to do some very dangerous missions to take out people that wish us harm because that is war. But to capture people and keep them detained in harsh and inhuman conditions without trial is just unlawful and we should be ashamed we condone what the Americans have done. And Obama should never have been re-elected because that was one BIG promise he failed to keep."
tend to agree..
the 'don't care what happens to them brigade' don't seem to spot that once we start allowing the dismantlement of rights, checks and balances within the system for 'them' its the start of a slippery slope for all of us..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The basic right every man, woman and child has on this planet is that they are innocent until proven guilty and that they must be tried before their peers. If we adopt ANY other standard then we lose the argument. We must maintain OUR standards not the terrorists' distortions of the Law. Now that doesn't mean we don't use Special Forces to do some very dangerous missions to take out people that wish us harm because that is war. But to capture people and keep them detained in harsh and inhuman conditions without trial is just unlawful and we should be ashamed we condone what the Americans have done. And Obama should never have been re-elected because that was one BIG promise he failed to keep.
tend to agree..
the 'don't care what happens to them brigade' don't seem to spot that once we start allowing the dismantlement of rights, checks and balances within the system for 'them' its the start of a slippery slope for all of us..
"
Pretty much the same people who will let their civil liberties be eroded in the name of terrorist activities because it doesn't affect them; until one day they inadvertantly find themselves on the wrong side of the line, due to the erosion of their liberties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better.
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
"
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it? "
well yes you are right but you sort of forget that what 'fuelled' the Jihadists was the decades of murder and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Israelis with the tacit approval of, funding by and cover from ... the USA. hence they attacked the USA and us as we have also condoned by saying nothing what Israel does.
We should disown Israel, ban all trade and all economic ties and tell them what they are doing in Palestine is no better than what Putin is up to in Ukraine. They use 'settlers' who are actually well trained operatives and Putin uses 'Russian speakers' who are actually specialist forces. 3 Jewish lads get murdered and Israel destroys 80% of Ghaza and kills over 2,00 men women and children. and yet when 2 Arab lads get murdered by settlers they do nothing. And we British do nothing. Somewhere we lost our national moral compass...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better.
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
"
And 'serious questions to answer' justify wholesale (and illegal) torture?
Well done on managing to cherry pick the subjects to support your case though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better.
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
And 'serious questions to answer' justify wholesale (and illegal) torture?
Well done on managing to cherry pick the subjects to support your case though."
Then please "cherry pick" the ones to support yours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If torturing someone can save dozens of people getting bombed or murdered is it wrong?? Ask the families of those that have been murdered by terrorists "
Except it has been acknowledged that the tortures carried out by the CIA during the timescales of the report published yesterday produced no useful intelligence that hadn't already been achieved by non-violent means.
If someone tortures you, the chances are you'll admit to anything, ask The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and Senator John McCain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better.
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
And 'serious questions to answer' justify wholesale (and illegal) torture?
Well done on managing to cherry pick the subjects to support your case though.
Then please "cherry pick" the ones to support yours."
Give me a couple of days to go through the list of almost 800 one time detainees at Guantanamo and I'll probably be able to find quite a few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better.
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
"
.
I think your absolutely bang on and agree with you wholesale, except I would wish them to be arrested brought back to the uk and tried in a British court and given life imprison.
If they get killed while trying to be detained then fair enough but let's be clear these people are determined, resourceful and most importantly committed to ending our way of life and democracy.
I get slagged off for being anti Muslim alot, which I'm not but the large minority of Muslim crazies are seriously dangerous, not just to ourselves but more importantly to the large majority of Muslims who aren't nuts but will be taken over by the committed ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If torturing someone can save dozens of people getting bombed or murdered is it wrong?? Ask the families of those that have been murdered by terrorists
Except it has been acknowledged that the tortures carried out by the CIA during the timescales of the report published yesterday produced no useful intelligence that hadn't already been achieved by non-violent means.
If someone tortures you, the chances are you'll admit to anything, ask The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and Senator John McCain."
Like and real info gleamed has been disclosed! Get real that a pointless statement because the closest you will get is redacted paperwork which says nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
After all it was a small minority of crazy buggers in Nazi Germany that dragged the normal Germans along the path of concentration camps and war.
So let's get this minority bunch of Muslims in control and let the peaceful majority find a better path. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Then please "cherry pick" the ones to support yours.
Give me a couple of days to go through the list of almost 800 one time detainees at Guantanamo and I'll probably be able to find quite a few."
I did only concentrate on the British ones, but with 800 to go at I'm sure I could find many many more to support my case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If torturing someone can save dozens of people getting bombed or murdered is it wrong?? Ask the families of those that have been murdered by terrorists
Except it has been acknowledged that the tortures carried out by the CIA during the timescales of the report published yesterday produced no useful intelligence that hadn't already been achieved by non-violent means.
If someone tortures you, the chances are you'll admit to anything, ask The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and Senator John McCain.
Like and real info gleamed has been disclosed! Get real that a pointless statement because the closest you will get is redacted paperwork which says nothing."
Read the book I alluded to earlier in this thread then, it said pretty much the same thing regarding the quality of intelligence that that FBI gleaned without resorting to torture compared to that which the CIA obtained with torture. The book was published four years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If torturing someone can save dozens of people getting bombed or murdered is it wrong?? Ask the families of those that have been murdered by terrorists
Except it has been acknowledged that the tortures carried out by the CIA during the timescales of the report published yesterday produced no useful intelligence that hadn't already been achieved by non-violent means.
If someone tortures you, the chances are you'll admit to anything, ask The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and Senator John McCain.
Like and real info gleamed has been disclosed! Get real that a pointless statement because the closest you will get is redacted paperwork which says nothing.
Read the book I alluded to earlier in this thread then, it said pretty much the same thing regarding the quality of intelligence that that FBI gleaned without resorting to torture compared to that which the CIA obtained with torture. The book was published four years ago."
Read my post! Any sensitive information is redacted so don't make it into the public domain for a minimum of 25 years. Google redacted it may help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If torturing someone can save dozens of people getting bombed or murdered is it wrong?? Ask the families of those that have been murdered by terrorists
Except it has been acknowledged that the tortures carried out by the CIA during the timescales of the report published yesterday produced no useful intelligence that hadn't already been achieved by non-violent means.
If someone tortures you, the chances are you'll admit to anything, ask The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and Senator John McCain.
Like and real info gleamed has been disclosed! Get real that a pointless statement because the closest you will get is redacted paperwork which says nothing.
Read the book I alluded to earlier in this thread then, it said pretty much the same thing regarding the quality of intelligence that that FBI gleaned without resorting to torture compared to that which the CIA obtained with torture. The book was published four years ago.
Read my post! Any sensitive information is redacted so don't make it into the public domain for a minimum of 25 years. Google redacted it may help. "
I know exactly what you meant but still don't see your point. The 600 page Executive Summary is damning in itself; do you think the redacted documents will cast a softer light over the whole affair?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Great post by OP
The issue here to me is moral high ground. Americans and also us Brits have started countless wars in recent decades with countries who do not sure democratic values and use fear and torture on their people. One of the justifications (not sole reasons) why support and bombings occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya was because of how tyrants such as Gadaffi cruelly treated his people and those who stood up against him.
It is well documented that the Americans kept people in custody in Guatanemo with little evidence and grounds. It is now confirmed that these people were tortured in a very worrying way.
Let me clear about my stance:
Gadaffi was a cunt to some of his people
Saddam Hussein was a cunt to his people
Assad is a cunt to some of his people
Taliban are cunts so many of their people
Bush and now Obama and their respective administrations are cunts to many people, some of which are Americans. Blair is a cunt too and us Brits have apparently been complicit in torture.
This is not actually about religion as all leaders involved in the unsaid world war 3 have been cunts.
9/11 was terrible and so was 7/7. Go to some of Arab countries affected and many thousands also killed.
War and power is a cunt.
I love everyday Brits, Americans and Iraqis etc. I despise most in power and the world quest for power does not make it easy for any politician. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think we'll ever see a time when people aren't at war.
It's stupid. Imagine what we could achieve as a species if we pooled our resources.
I know it's a pipe dream but it'd be an exciting time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Feinstein has today released her long awaited report on the 'enhanced' CIA interrogation tactics used in the shadow of 9 11.
It's damning. America should be ashamed. It tortured prisoners and in the process broke it's own laws, it also lost much of its self perceived moral high ground.
I would though like to comment on the fact that few countries would embarrass themselves so publicly and openly. The honesty of the report and it's public airing is in itself a credit to them.
The good the bad and the ugly of the US wrapped up in one story.
"
Do terrorists show any mercy or compassion.
So why should anybody treat them any different ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Feinstein has today released her long awaited report on the 'enhanced' CIA interrogation tactics used in the shadow of 9 11.
It's damning. America should be ashamed. It tortured prisoners and in the process broke it's own laws, it also lost much of its self perceived moral high ground.
I would though like to comment on the fact that few countries would embarrass themselves so publicly and openly. The honesty of the report and it's public airing is in itself a credit to them.
The good the bad and the ugly of the US wrapped up in one story.
Do terrorists show any mercy or compassion.
So why should anybody treat them any different !"
Today's terrorists are tomorrows politicians.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
"
interesting list perhaps if you applied the same vigour you would have noticed I said 'some'..
and I suggest you try harder in your 'research' to support your pov, there were 759 people formerly and still detained in Guantanamo..
it doesn't take long to find the names of innocent people or people still held for over ten years without charge, if you want to but again I suspect you will only concentrate on those who you want to..
you quote Omar Deghayes, held for 5 years not charged and released minus an eye after all 6 MP's in Brighton campaigned for his release..
and by the way torture, bribery and just plain old someone said have been commonplace reasons why people have been held, none of it proven under the law of the land. Not even close to the same standards that you and I would receive under our system..
strange logic you have that your happy to see the rights of some people to be less than your own..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wonder how the Ysnks would have reacted if we had dealt with I R A suspects like this ? Or sent Drones in to Ardoyne ! Just a thought 
if?
"
are you suggesting we did ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does it directly have an impact on anyone on here? Chances are probably not. So get on with your life like you did before. "
Its more important that we talk about how dickss and cunts get on together without picking a fight isn't it! Lol. Normal sane ppl get upset when they see on the news a dog or cat being inhumanely treated. Since the first Irqi war in 1991, the 12 years economic embargo that has led to the death of half million vhildren in the reported first 6 years of those 12 years. Then came the illigitimate war of 2003 when there was no trace of Alqaida in Iraq, nor did Irq had nuclear weapons as claimed by bush and bliar. Millions of innocent Iraqis died at the hands of the US and UK. The so heavenly democracy that we exported them did nothing but created the perfect recepy for a civil war that wd spread to neoghbouring coutries. Exactly what we want. More justifications for more military interventions and more bombing. but its ok as lomg as in the media we are called the freedom fighters (no the invaders) and they are called terrorists (not freedom fighters) and as long as for every one death of our soldiers or citizens we make sure we kill thousands than its right. We are morally superior cause we have the means to shout our voice in every satelite and they have no voice. They are extremists and we are the liberals and the humanitarians. So lets fuck every country around the world as we did a century ago. We claimed those nations we invaded as primitive and non civilised and that we are the superior civilisation and moral society. We claimed that by colonising them we a.
re teaching them civilisation. What we was destroying their civilisation. Thiefing their national and human wealth and destroying nation building they have bern working on for centuries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wonder how the Ysnks would have reacted if we had dealt with I R A suspects like this ? Or sent Drones in to Ardoyne ! Just a thought
if?
are you suggesting we did ? "
We certainly tortured them, however there were no such things as drones in those days! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fox News is putting a nice spin on this..Lol what don't they put a nice spin on.
What's the old guys name who does fox news, bit of a religious war monger... He's so crap he's actually funny.
Bill something.
I once saw him interview hitchins on Christian values... He lasted about 3 minutes before being so shot down, he got all arsey and threw hitch of the show "
Bill Oreilly is an utter, utter cunt and an absolute joke, I can imagine a debate between him and Hitchens would be like watching a worm desperately thrashing around in an attempt to overcome an Eagle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wonder how the Ysnks would have reacted if we had dealt with I R A suspects like this ? Or sent Drones in to Ardoyne ! Just a thought
if?
are you suggesting we did ? "
yes and that it was sanctioned at Ministerial level.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
interesting list perhaps if you applied the same vigour you would have noticed I said 'some'..
and I suggest you try harder in your 'research' to support your pov, there were 759 people formerly and still detained in Guantanamo..
it doesn't take long to find the names of innocent people or people still held for over ten years without charge, if you want to but again I suspect you will only concentrate on those who you want to..
you quote Omar Deghayes, held for 5 years not charged and released minus an eye after all 6 MP's in Brighton campaigned for his release..
and by the way torture, bribery and just plain old someone said have been commonplace reasons why people have been held, none of it proven under the law of the land. Not even close to the same standards that you and I would receive under our system..
strange logic you have that your happy to see the rights of some people to be less than your own..
"
Yes you did say some, but you also said "from this country" so using "Surreysensual" as a clue I took it that you meant the UK. and I think my list was pretty comprehensive when limited to the British terrorists. Maybe there were some from other country's that should not have been sent to Guantanamo but to be really honest I don't care that much. The defence of British and Western European interests will for me always take priority. If by waterboarding someone who was picked up armed to the teeth in a war zone means that we have a chance (even if only slim) of avoiding another 9/11 or 7/7 then so be it.
In you last paragraph you accuse me of "strange logic that your happy to see the rights of some people to be less than your own" This from someone who is always happy on here to defend the Stalinist Soviet Union (that murdered around 50 million people) because you think they won the war on our behalf.
Maybe if "Uncle Joe" had been "Uncle Sam" you would have a different viewpoint. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Do terrorists show any mercy or compassion.
So why should anybody treat them any different !"
Yes I agree that those who torture are terrorists, they're not showing any mercy or compassion, but surely you're not suggesting they should be murdered or beheaded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do terrorists show any mercy or compassion.
So why should anybody treat them any different !
Yes I agree that those who torture are terrorists, they're not showing any mercy or compassion, but surely you're not suggesting they should be murdered or beheaded."
You have to ask that on here
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Yes you did say some, but you also said "from this country" so using "Surreysensual" as a clue I took it that you meant the UK. and I think my list was pretty comprehensive when limited to the British terrorists. Maybe there were some from other country's that should not have been sent to Guantanamo but to be really honest I don't care that much. The defence of British and Western European interests will for me always take priority. If by waterboarding someone who was picked up armed to the teeth in a war zone means that we have a chance (even if only slim) of avoiding another 9/11 or 7/7 then so be it.
In you last paragraph you accuse me of "strange logic that your happy to see the rights of some people to be less than your own" This from someone who is always happy on here to defend the Stalinist Soviet Union (that murdered around 50 million people) because you think they won the war on our behalf.
Maybe if "Uncle Joe" had been "Uncle Sam" you would have a different viewpoint."
If you're extremist views held any merit then America simply would not have admitted to any wrong doing.
Extremists on the western side are able to justify to themselves that torture and murder are valid. Extremists on the ISIS side can justify to themselves that beheadings are valid.
You're views are extremist, the good thing is that they don't represent the US or the UK. They have been totally and utterly discredited. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If torturing someone can save dozens of people getting bombed or murdered is it wrong?? Ask the families of those that have been murdered by terrorists "
In a word "Yes".
As this report clearly states the information you get is at best questionable and where the CIA claimed credit for 'saving Britain' it turns out our own non torturing security services had already dismantled the threats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do terrorists show any mercy or compassion.
So why should anybody treat them any different !"
For the same reason merciless murderers and rapists and other nasty bastards are caught, treated humanely while in custody, tried and if convicted go to jail for a very long time.
Its called living in a civilised society that has certain standards and maintains them regardless of the provocation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In you last paragraph you accuse me of "strange logic that your happy to see the rights of some people to be less than your own" This from someone who is always happy on here to defend the Stalinist Soviet Union (that murdered around 50 million people) because you think they won the war on our behalf.
Maybe if "Uncle Joe" had been "Uncle Sam" you would have a different viewpoint."
care to point me to anywhere at anytime I have 'defended' any dictator of any country..
let alone happy to do so, your a liar and not a good one..
my views on such things are known, in choosing to lie you seek to deflect that your still happy to have innocents tortured on your behalf by 'us' and totally fail to see that its not only failed to prevent the atrocities you give but only serves to radicalise more people to support terrorism..
your support for such things is equally as much a part of the problem as someone who promotes murdering innocents..
that you cant see that is sad and worrying..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Feinstein has today released her long awaited report on the 'enhanced' CIA interrogation tactics used in the shadow of 9 11.
It's damning. America should be ashamed. It tortured prisoners and in the process broke it's own laws, it also lost much of its self perceived moral high ground.
I would though like to comment on the fact that few countries would embarrass themselves so publicly and openly. The honesty of the report and it's public airing is in itself a credit to them.
The good the bad and the ugly of the US wrapped up in one story.
"
Just makes me think what are they really up to with such a public distraction - and by default, what will 'we' be joining them in. 'Squirrel!!'
B |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do terrorists show any mercy or compassion.
So why should anybody treat them any different !
For the same reason merciless murderers and rapists and other nasty bastards are caught, treated humanely while in custody, tried and if convicted go to jail for a very long time.
Its called living in a civilised society that has certain standards and maintains them regardless of the provocation."
And that's it, in a nutshell!
Have you been attending the same Research, Ethics and Diversity lectures as me?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xpresMan
over a year ago
Elland |
Totally agree with the CIAs meathods, to get information out of fanatics who truly believe in the killing of innocent people by suicide bomber or roadside bomb etc. A bit of torture is the least they could do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So many people agree with US state sponsored torture yet seem to think those who are the subject of that policy are the ones in the wrong...
Please don't get me wrong, I am all for wiping out any threat to my (our) security, and fully understand that in the heat of combat (been there) things are done that are not legal, but are totally justifiable, and allowances must be made for these situations. However these allowances can not be allowed to extend to the systematic torture of prisoners over long periods of time away from the combat zone by 'specialist interrogators' or to give them their proper name professional torturers and their political bosses.
I could say more but will refrain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it will come back to bite them and us on the arse..
when one is breaking every law in the book and trampling the rights of people willy nilly then one has given the terrorists a victory..
Maybe it will bite them (and us) on the arse one day, but let's get it right.
ISIS. ISIL. IS. Alky Ada. or whatever that pile of shitbag scum call themselves this week don't give a flying fuck about human rights and international law. So when dealing with them why the fuck should we?
we are not talking about 'now' we are talking about innocent people being snatched going about their lawful business taken in a plane to some place and tortured..
no doubt some of which has helped the extremists now fighting under the ISIS banner and many before them..
Geneva convention ring any bells..?
its what separates us from them otherwise we all end up at their level which they want..
and the report basically says what many have been saying for years, you torture someone they will say anything you want for you to stop but that doesn't mean it has any value or truth..
Lawful business???
You mean like the ones caught at Taliban/Alky Ada training camps, or picked up in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region armed to the teeth?
Hardly Red Riding Hood off to see Granny. You mean these innocents who think that blowing up anything or anyone that/who doesn't agree with their warped mediEVIL (sic) ideology is the will of god (whoever he/she may be) Or the "scholars" who think it's fine to shoot a 15 year old girl because she wants to go to school?
For these pieces of shit the only thing wrong with "waterboarding" is that it isn't painful enough, but it will do until I think of something better.
I should have said some were going about their lawful business such as citizens of this country on business and snatched as there name was 'of interest', tortured and held without charge in Guantanamo then released with no explanation..
mind you I doubt it would matter to you would it..?
on the extremists we are probably not that far apart but you seem happy for others to not have the same rights as you or I, that in itself is extreme and part of what fuels the radicals who carry out such obscenities..
I'm trying to find these innocents who were snatched while going about their "lawful business"
So far I've found Moazzam Begg who (taken from his Wiki page) "has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism" The Yanks accused him of quite a lot more, but just his own admissions would be enough to refute "lawful business"
Or Feroz Abbasi who (again from his Wiki page) "was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance, they claim he had hand grenades strapped to his legs and was carrying a military radio" in a war zone. Now what "lawful business" would he have been on?
Maybe you mean Richard Belmar who attended Taliban training camps in Kandahar and was arrested in an Al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan. I very much doubt he was on a humanitarian mission or learning to be a Brickie.
I suppose you could make a case for Martin Mubanga. Arrested in Zambia and was of interest because his passport was found in an Al Qaeda cave in Afghanistan. So while a bit harsh banging him up in Guantanamo I think they were entitled to have a chat with him at least.
Of the others, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal (known as the "Tipton three") all three were known to have radical Islamic views and were were arrested in the Northern Afghanistan war zone. I would love to know what "lawful business" they were on.
Tarek Dergoul who lost an arm while pursuing his "lawful business" fighting for the Taliban.
It does get a bit confusing about Omar Deghayes. He was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing from Afghanistan in one report or "arrested in Spain in November 2001 for extremist activities and links to an Al-Qaeda cell based in Spain" according to another. However there was quite a chunk of evidence linking him to militant cells in Libya and was believed to have information about militant activities in the UK.
Finally there is Jamal al-Harith who was seized in a special forces raid. He claimed to have been a prisoner of the Taliban who had accused him of being a British spy, which he wasn't. So why was he in a Taliban camp?
You make "lawful business" sound like they had all been on a flower arranging course when the reality is that all but one of them were detained in decidedly dodgy areas and all of them had (at least) serious questions to answer.
As for fuelling the radicals as you say. September 11th 2001 happened long before the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, and Camp Gitmo hadn't even been thought of. So it hardly fuelled that bunch of nutters did it?
"
That was very eell laid out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Totally agree with the CIAs meathods, to get information out of fanatics who truly believe in the killing of innocent people by suicide bomber or roadside bomb etc. A bit of torture is the least they could do"
By western standards your statement is fanatic in itself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Serious question to those up in arms about this yes sometimes unwarranted and insuccessful interrogation of terrorists if as in my case who lost my brother in the 9/11 attacks if by torturing just one person had stopped this happening if they would say it was not worth doing to stop this.
Remember this 9/11 was the prelude to Afghanistan war and search for Bin Laden mot the other way round.
Torture yielded evidence which ultimately led to Bin Laden being found a bullet was to easy a way out out.
So do not tell me whilst unpleasant to read torture of some did not yielde some results end of day live by the sword die by the sword take a life then you should have no rights simple as that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Serious question to those up in arms about this yes sometimes unwarranted and insuccessful interrogation of terrorists if as in my case who lost my brother in the 9/11 attacks if by torturing just one person had stopped this happening if they would say it was not worth doing to stop this.
Remember this 9/11 was the prelude to Afghanistan war and search for Bin Laden mot the other way round.
Torture yielded evidence which ultimately led to Bin Laden being found a bullet was to easy a way out out.
So do not tell me whilst unpleasant to read torture of some did not yielde some results end of day live by the sword die by the sword take a life then you should have no rights simple as that."
Firstly, the only time torture works is when used on a battlefield to get immediate information, and then it is unreliable because when someone is being tortured they will say anything they think you want to hear to make the pain go away. So unless you know what questions to ask and how to ask them it is useless. Further on the battlefield those being tortured have the hope that they will be allowed enter the enemy captured system if they tell what they know which gives an extra incentive to talk. However if a prisoner is in the system and has been removed from the combat area and handed over to professional torturers and been 'disappeared' then they have no hope and so no incentive to help.
Secondly, within 48 hours of capture all useful information becomes useless as every organization has contingency plans in place to cover every possible security breach. So spending months torturing captives serves no useful purpose. In fact it has been show again and again that when a policy of systematic torture is used that all it does is harden the resolve of those who will be subject to torture not to be taken alive and to do as much damage as possible when cornered before dying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Serious question to those up in arms about this yes sometimes unwarranted and insuccessful interrogation of terrorists if as in my case who lost my brother in the 9/11 attacks if by torturing just one person had stopped this happening if they would say it was not worth doing to stop this.
Remember this 9/11 was the prelude to Afghanistan war and search for Bin Laden mot the other way round.
Torture yielded evidence which ultimately led to Bin Laden being found a bullet was to easy a way out out.
So do not tell me whilst unpleasant to read torture of some did not yielde some results end of day live by the sword die by the sword take a life then you should have no rights simple as that."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Serious question to those up in arms about this yes sometimes unwarranted and insuccessful interrogation of terrorists if as in my case who lost my brother in the 9/11 attacks if by torturing just one person had stopped this happening if they would say it was not worth doing to stop this.
Remember this 9/11 was the prelude to Afghanistan war and search for Bin Laden mot the other way round.
Torture yielded evidence which ultimately led to Bin Laden being found a bullet was to easy a way out out.
So do not tell me whilst unpleasant to read torture of some did not yielde some results end of day live by the sword die by the sword take a life then you should have no rights simple as that."
We're not telling you anything, the Americans are. They are unambiguous and clear. Torture did not work.
It shouldn't be too difficult for you to work out some of the many preludes to 911. (May I add that I am saddened by your loss).
Beheadings by ISIS will not stop UK and US bombing raids, it will only strengthen the resolve of the west.
Torture by the CIA will not stop the actions of Islamic extremists, it will only strengthen their resolve.
Can you really not see this?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Totally agree with the CIAs meathods, to get information out of fanatics who truly believe in the killing of innocent people by suicide bomber or roadside bomb etc. A bit of torture is the least they could do"
OK so the next time you get nabbed by the Police and they slap you around a bit to get a confession I wonder if you will retain your point of you then?
We have standards and rules and regardless of whatever someone has done they are innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes the Yanks can't quite understand that not all Muslims are terrorists and apply different standards. And wonder why events like 9 / 11 happen... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
......
It shouldn't be too difficult for you to work out some of the many preludes to 911. (May I add that I am saddened by your loss).
Beheadings by ISIS will not stop UK and US bombing raids, it will only strengthen the resolve of the west.
Torture by the CIA will not stop the actions of Islamic extremists, it will only strengthen their resolve.
Can you really not see this?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
......
It shouldn't be too difficult for you to work out some of the many preludes to 911. (May I add that I am saddened by your loss).
Beheadings by ISIS will not stop UK and US bombing raids, it will only strengthen the resolve of the west.
Torture by the CIA will not stop the actions of Islamic extremists, it will only strengthen their resolve.
Can you really not see this?
"
exactly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Yanks think they own the world and we all have to dance to their tune. Sadly we have gone along with it to our shame. But what the CIA and most Yanks can't understand is they put 700+ Jihadist Recruiting Sergeants in Guantanamo Bay ...
And until someone reins in the Israelis there will be a million more of them in Palestine. One causes the other. We never had a 'Middle East problem' until 1948 when the newly crowned world rulers the USA created Israel removing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process. But it was OK. God made them a promise!. And people are too frightened to say so because they get labelled 'anti-semitic'. Just like we can't discuss immigration without being labelled racist... So I guess I am both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Yanks think they own the world and we all have to dance to their tune. Sadly we have gone along with it to our shame. But what the CIA and most Yanks can't understand is they put 700+ Jihadist Recruiting Sergeants in Guantanamo Bay ...
And until someone reins in the Israelis there will be a million more of them in Palestine. One causes the other. We never had a 'Middle East problem' until 1948 when the newly crowned world rulers the USA created Israel removing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process. But it was OK. God made them a promise!. And people are too frightened to say so because they get labelled 'anti-semitic'. Just like we can't discuss immigration without being labelled racist... So I guess I am both."
I think you will find it was the English that created the state of Israel, after the upraising in Palestine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Totally agree with the CIAs meathods, to get information out of fanatics who truly believe in the killing of innocent people by suicide bomber or roadside bomb etc. A bit of torture is the least they could do"
Just a thought. Would you say the same about the Zionist terrorists in Palestine in '47 and '48 who did exactly what you described (minus the suicide bit as they were too cowardly like the IRA) and bombed innocent British soldiers (my cousin included) in hotels, laid roadside bombs for passing Palestinians and murdered thousands of women and children? Or was their cause 'just' and is revenge for their actions 'unjust'? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Totally agree with the CIAs meathods, to get information out of fanatics who truly believe in the killing of innocent people by suicide bomber or roadside bomb etc. A bit of torture is the least they could do
Just a thought. Would you say the same about the Zionist terrorists in Palestine in '47 and '48 who did exactly what you described (minus the suicide bit as they were too cowardly like the IRA) and bombed innocent British soldiers (my cousin included) in hotels, laid roadside bombs for passing Palestinians and murdered thousands of women and children? Or was their cause 'just' and is revenge for their actions 'unjust'? "
Yes if it stopped them, and i believe we did |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you will find it was the English that created the state of Israel, after the upraising in Palestine "
Forgive my being blunt but you display a certain ignorance of fact. The British were the mandated Protecting Power in Palestine by international agreement after the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. It was specified as a 'special place' and the British created a governing and civil structure that allowed the three main religions to live in relative peace for 30 years until after WWII. Progressive immigration of Jewish settlers was permitted over those years but had to be stopped as people fled Europe prior to WWII. We Brits placed valuable resources there to protect them from Nazi invasion. After WWII the US funded Zionist movement shipped in thousands of European Jews to Palestine and proceeded to harass, bomb, kill and ethnically cleanse Palestine of Muslim Arabs. British soldiers were killed protecting Palestinians and trying to keep order. 'Settlers' became front line troops and it all came to a head in '48 when the USA strongarmed the UN into recognising 'Israel' in the land that was Palestine. To our great pride we resisted but had to bow to the financial power of the USA as we were bankrupt after WWII.
So with respect Sir Britain played NO part in the creation of Israel other than trying to protect innocent Palestinians from slaughter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
......
It shouldn't be too difficult for you to work out some of the many preludes to 911. (May I add that I am saddened by your loss).
Beheadings by ISIS will not stop UK and US bombing raids, it will only strengthen the resolve of the west.
Torture by the CIA will not stop the actions of Islamic extremists, it will only strengthen their resolve.
Can you really not see this?
exactly."
as well here ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you will find it was the English that created the state of Israel, after the upraising in Palestine
Forgive my being blunt but you display a certain ignorance of fact. The British were the mandated Protecting Power in Palestine by international agreement after the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. It was specified as a 'special place' and the British created a governing and civil structure that allowed the three main religions to live in relative peace for 30 years until after WWII. Progressive immigration of Jewish settlers was permitted over those years but had to be stopped as people fled Europe prior to WWII. We Brits placed valuable resources there to protect them from Nazi invasion. After WWII the US funded Zionist movement shipped in thousands of European Jews to Palestine and proceeded to harass, bomb, kill and ethnically cleanse Palestine of Muslim Arabs. British soldiers were killed protecting Palestinians and trying to keep order. 'Settlers' became front line troops and it all came to a head in '48 when the USA strongarmed the UN into recognising 'Israel' in the land that was Palestine. To our great pride we resisted but had to bow to the financial power of the USA as we were bankrupt after WWII.
So with respect Sir Britain played NO part in the creation of Israel other than trying to protect innocent Palestinians from slaughter."
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate.The borders of the new state were not specified. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former Palestinian mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (1956–1957, 1967–1982), part of South Lebanon (1982–2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank.Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, but efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have so far not resulted in peace.
In 1970 America principly aliied its self with Israel
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In reference to my point about where all this started we quite rightly grieve over the 450+ people killed in Afghanistan fighting Muslim extremist terrorists. But the media, BBC especially, never mention the 740+ that were killed in Palestine fighting Zionist extremist terrorists. I hope this link will be of interest:
http://www.britishforcesinpalestine.org/inmemoriam.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish homeland within the Palestinian Mandate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate....
In 1970 America principly aliied its self with Israel
"
The first part is fact and confirms what I said and so how could Britain have created Israel?
Sadly the second part is a total fabrication. The USA funded the Zionists from the outset and was the first to recognise the State of Israel. It directly funded Israel from 1948. And has done to the tune of over $180Billion ever since. $3Billion this year alone and unlike every other US state aid it is paid in cash in the first week of January. Now have you noticed the Israelis have gone (comparatively) quiet only murdering a few people recently while the USA decides its Sequestration budget? After January I think you will see new arms deals and further attacks on Ghaza ... was it ever thus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate....
In 1970 America principly aliied its self with Israel
The first part is fact and confirms what I said and so how could Britain have created Israel?
Sadly the second part is a total fabrication. The USA funded the Zionists from the outset and was the first to recognise the State of Israel. It directly funded Israel from 1948. And has done to the tune of over $180Billion ever since. $3Billion this year alone and unlike every other US state aid it is paid in cash in the first week of January. Now have you noticed the Israelis have gone (comparatively) quiet only murdering a few people recently while the USA decides its Sequestration budget? After January I think you will see new arms deals and further attacks on Ghaza ... was it ever thus. "
Not true, not being negitive here, read your history, and yes America has, since 1970. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish homeland within the Palestinian Mandate."
You state history well but where did Balfour or Sykes-Picot state that Palestinians would be run out of the homelands they had lived in for centuries to be replaced by European Jews who had no connection with the place? It was never the intention. Having a 'Jewish Homeland within the Mandate' is not what the USA and the Zionists created. As I said progressive Jewish immigration into Palestine was allowed for 30 years, it worked reasonably well and was in accord with international agreements. And you forget the Christians in all this. They were murdered as well in the creation of an exclusively Jewish State. That is miles from what Balfour intended and Sykes-Picot created. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish homeland within the Palestinian Mandate.
You state history well but where did Balfour or Sykes-Picot state that Palestinians would be run out of the homelands they had lived in for centuries to be replaced by European Jews who had no connection with the place? It was never the intention. Having a 'Jewish Homeland within the Mandate' is not what the USA and the Zionists created. As I said progressive Jewish immigration into Palestine was allowed for 30 years, it worked reasonably well and was in accord with international agreements. And you forget the Christians in all this. They were murdered as well in the creation of an exclusively Jewish State. That is miles from what Balfour intended and Sykes-Picot created."
It dosent, same as all the other counties in the world Britian has meddled in, please stop blaming America for all the i'lls and woes in the world, we as Bristish created most of them, from India, to the Balkans through to the far east |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Not true, not being negitive here, read your history, and yes America has, since 1970."
I read my history as it is my families personal history. But try this US Congressional report which incidentally list far more support than I mentioned:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Or this one:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/130bill.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It dosent, same as all the other counties in the world Britian has meddled in, please stop blaming America for all the i'lls and woes in the world, we as Bristish created most of them, from India, to the Balkans through to the far east "
A slight distortion of my position but I guess when you don't like the message you have a pop at the messenger and then extend the argument into non sequitur statements. I wasn't blaming America for all the ills of the world. Just the biggest one. Simples!
I will stand Britain's history of leaving places in better condition than America ever did at any time. If we were so evil why did 50 odd join the Commonwealth and 16 retain Her Majesty as Head of State? And the Empire raise Millions of troops with us in WWII? Not ONE dominion or colony went against us when they had the chance.
Not sure we ever had any colonies in the Balkans but hey every day a school day.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Not true, not being negitive here, read your history, and yes America has, since 1970.
I read my history as it is my families personal history. But try this US Congressional report which incidentally list far more support than I mentioned:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Or this one:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/130bill.html"
I understand were your coming from, and i do sympathize, but he fact is , America are not and never will be a colonist country, all im saying is that we as British have a hell of a lot more to answer for than the Americans tbh.
We have abused people all over the world for centuries, and still are if the truths know, theres a saying, you fight fire with fire, myself i dont believe it, i think talking is a far better solution |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I understand were your coming from, and i do sympathize, but he fact is , America are not and never will be a colonist country, all im saying is that we as British have a hell of a lot more to answer for than the Americans tbh.
We have abused people all over the world for centuries, and still are if the truths know, theres a saying, you fight fire with fire, myself i dont believe it, i think talking is a far better solution "
I didn't say America was a coloniser. I said it had questions to answer about where all the Muslim Jihadist movement came from, the report about how they treat Muslims and their record against Muslims. And for me it is really simple: 1948 and the creation of Israel was just the starting point and the USA has continually funded directly and guaranteed Zionist extremism to the detriment of Palestinians in particular and Muslims in general.
And as for Britain we haven't colonised a country for over two hundred years so I don't think your argument stands scrutiny. And every country we did colonise has stood the test of time pretty well after Independence. Even the USA ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I understand were your coming from, and i do sympathize, but he fact is , America are not and never will be a colonist country, all im saying is that we as British have a hell of a lot more to answer for than the Americans tbh.
We have abused people all over the world for centuries, and still are if the truths know, theres a saying, you fight fire with fire, myself i dont believe it, i think talking is a far better solution
I didn't say America was a coloniser. I said it had questions to answer about where all the Muslim Jihadist movement came from, the report about how they treat Muslims and their record against Muslims. And for me it is really simple: 1948 and the creation of Israel was just the starting point and the USA has continually funded directly and guaranteed Zionist extremism to the detriment of Palestinians in particular and Muslims in general.
And as for Britain we haven't colonised a country for over two hundred years so I don't think your argument stands scrutiny. And every country we did colonise has stood the test of time pretty well after Independence. Even the USA ..."
But you call it extremism, they would call it different.
So you say protecting a legally reckonised country, whos boarders where and are threatened year after year, and said they would be wiped from the face of the earth is wrong then??
And i really dont think Muslim extremism really started in 1948.
Did you think that the Palestinians blowing up planes and murdering athletes in the 70s was the right thing to do, or shooting a disabled pensioner and kicking him out of the plane onto a runway was right also,
But i do agree what is happening in that part of the world is wrong, on BOTH sides.
I dont think i ever said that Britain had colonised any country, what i said is that we had and have a lot to answer for in the ones we did, in the way we raped and pillaged, there countries. and the agreements that we made to divide them.
Let them without sin cast the first stone i think the bible says, and tbh, none of them can
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Palestine was invaded by Britain In 1916 while the first WWI was going on. The USA had nothing to do with it nor did they promise a jewish state to the Jews. Balfour did it signed ink on paper in 1917. Britain needed the USA in the war and the Jews owned the banks and the finances in the USA. They had always a big influence in the American finances and economy. They own the Media, Holywood everything. The Zionist loby promised Britain to bring the USA into war against Germany if in return Britain will help them create an Israelian state. The Zion protocol was made in 1898 and they have made their plans to create their state in that protocol. They had a hand in starting WW1 and 2. They convinced the US government to get involved in the war. Then Britain had to keep its promise. It was after WW1 when Britain was too week to keep its colonies and America and the Soviets were the big benefitors of the war, economically and Geostratigically, only then the USA became a world super power and inherited the British empire. They created the UN to keep control over the rest of the world and make sure to not let any other superpowers to emerge. Palestinians and muslims where and still are the victims of the empire game. Extremism and violence is a natural result pf oppression and occupation. It applies to any race and any faith. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Palestine was invaded by Britain In 1916 while the first WWI was going on. The USA had nothing to do with it nor did they promise a jewish state to the Jews. Balfour did it signed ink on paper in 1917. Britain needed the USA in the war and the Jews owned the banks and the finances in the USA. They had always a big influence in the American finances and economy. They own the Media, Holywood everything. The Zionist loby promised Britain to bring the USA into war against Germany if in return Britain will help them create an Israelian state. The Zion protocol was made in 1898 and they have made their plans to create their state in that protocol. They had a hand in starting WW1 and 2. They convinced the US government to get involved in the war. Then Britain had to keep its promise. It was after WW1 when Britain was too week to keep its colonies and America and the Soviets were the big benefitors of the war, economically and Geostratigically, only then the USA became a world super power and inherited the British empire. They created the UN to keep control over the rest of the world and make sure to not let any other superpowers to emerge. Palestinians and muslims where and still are the victims of the empire game. Extremism and violence is a natural result pf oppression and occupation. It applies to any race and any faith. "
Sorry I dissociate myself from everything you have said there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What do you think mossads role was during WW2.
They were/are the Jewish extremists version of Isis.
If the Saudis wanted Palestine free they could turn off those oil taps tomorrow and by Monday the Palestinians would have there own state.
They won't because they don't |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" But you call it extremism, they would call it different.
So you say protecting a legally reckonised country, whos boarders where and are threatened year after year, and said they would be wiped from the face of the earth is wrong then??
And i really dont think Muslim extremism really started in 1948.
Did you think that the Palestinians blowing up planes and murdering athletes in the 70s was the right thing to do, or shooting a disabled pensioner and kicking him out of the plane onto a runway was right also,
But i do agree what is happening in that part of the world is wrong, on BOTH sides.
I dont think i ever said that Britain had colonised any country, what i said is that we had and have a lot to answer for in the ones we did, in the way we raped and pillaged, there countries. and the agreements that we made to divide them.
Let them without sin cast the first stone i think the bible says, and tbh, none of them can "
Frankly I don't care what the USA and Israel call what they are doing ... sorry.
No protecting your borders is a basic right. But you miss the point. I am saying the very way Israel was created and how it has treated Palestinians since CAUSES the very threats it says it needs to defend itself against. Had the Zionist movement acted differently, or better still not existed, then an 'Israel' could have been created alongside the Palestinian Nation and we would never have had the wars and catastrophes we have had to endure.
Muslim extremism started the day the Zionist extremist robbed Muslims of their homes, businesses, farms and country. So make that 1946.
No I never condone ANY act of terrorism and have never said I do so don't even go there mate ... But can I ask do you agree that Israel was wrong to remove all the men from Shatilla and other refugee camps and then send in militia to kill thousands of women and children? And would you also agree that if you were one of those husbands you would want to take utter revenge on any Israelis for your loss?
And yes let him without sin cast the first stone as Jesus said. But when a mob casts stones at you, your wife and children and kills them simply because you are living on a piece of land that the mob wants to own then you cast more than a stone back ... and it goes on from there. However the slick media presentations by Israel play it and play the victim there is one underlying and undeniable fact. The Zionist movement started all this. Everything else is revenge and counter revenge over generations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What do you think mossads role was during WW2.
They were/are the Jewish extremists version of Isis.
If the Saudis wanted Palestine free they could turn off those oil taps tomorrow and by Monday the Palestinians would have there own state.
They won't because they don't"
Well given Mossad didn't even exist in WWII I am not sure we can take the rest of your comment with any seriousness.
"Mossad was formed on December 13, 1949, as the "Central Institute for Coordination" at the recommendation of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion"
And given the way Mossad undermines every other nation with its activities and has been shown to have caused many actions then blamed on Palestinians I am not so sure we should show any respect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sadly the situation of Israel is fuelled by too many factors. Firstly there are fervently patriotic Jews who spend their childhood visiting Auschwitz and being educated about their people's persecution over the centuries. See the excellent Jewish documentary called 'Defamation' to start grasping how the Jewish education system is perpetuating the problem by forcing everyone to continually relive their ancestor's pain. No room for forgive and forget in this mindset.
But... on top of all this... would you believe it... there are actually quite a sizeable and powerful group of Born Again Christians who are sincerely hoping that the Jews and the Palestinians hit it off and create armageddon... and thereby bring Jesus back. I've bumped into these people lobbying in the UK. Their joint goal is... the funding of Isreal... AND... goading the whole situation on so that it descends into the mother of all wars.
Just thinking of the poor little olive farmers, be they Jewish or Palestinian, they really haven't got a chance with all that going on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What do you think mossads role was during WW2.
They were/are the Jewish extremists version of Isis.
If the Saudis wanted Palestine free they could turn off those oil taps tomorrow and by Monday the Palestinians would have there own state.
They won't because they don't
Well given Mossad didn't even exist in WWII I am not sure we can take the rest of your comment with any seriousness.
"Mossad was formed on December 13, 1949, as the "Central Institute for Coordination" at the recommendation of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion"
And given the way Mossad undermines every other nation with its activities and has been shown to have caused many actions then blamed on Palestinians I am not so sure we should show any respect. "
.
Officially mossad was created with the Israeli state.
Before that the same group carried out all the Israeli terrorism on both Palestinians and the British. And I would add the British leaving an unarmed Palestinian people to a fully armed militia like mossad who systematically cleansed Palestinian villages only 24 hours later was probably one of the worst decisions in history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Yanks think they own the world and we all have to dance to their tune. Sadly we have gone along with it to our shame. But what the CIA and most Yanks can't understand is they put 700+ Jihadist Recruiting Sergeants in Guantanamo Bay ...
And until someone reins in the Israelis there will be a million more of them in Palestine. One causes the other. We never had a 'Middle East problem' until 1948 when the newly crowned world rulers the USA created Israel removing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process. But it was OK. God made them a promise!. And people are too frightened to say so because they get labelled 'anti-semitic'. Just like we can't discuss immigration without being labelled racist... So I guess I am both."
The above is the most intelligent post I have ever seen on here ! It wouldn't be a bad idea if all sides watched the Charlton Heston Film El CID ! Should be on at Xmas ! And has a message way ahead of its Time ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadly the situation of Israel is fuelled by too many factors. Firstly there are fervently patriotic Jews who spend their childhood visiting Auschwitz and being educated about their people's persecution over the centuries. See the excellent Jewish documentary called 'Defamation' to start grasping how the Jewish education system is perpetuating the problem by forcing everyone to continually relive their ancestor's pain. No room for forgive and forget in this mindset.
But... on top of all this... would you believe it... there are actually quite a sizeable and powerful group of Born Again Christians who are sincerely hoping that the Jews and the Palestinians hit it off and create armageddon... and thereby bring Jesus back. I've bumped into these people lobbying in the UK. Their joint goal is... the funding of Isreal... AND... goading the whole situation on so that it descends into the mother of all wars.
Just thinking of the poor little olive farmers, be they Jewish or Palestinian, they really haven't got a chance with all that going on "
this doesn't surprise me at all ! I have a fily member who is a devout Christian yet to him the Israelis can do no wrong ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"
We never had a 'Middle East problem' until 1948 when the newly crowned world rulers the USA created Israel removing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process. "
You'll find we have a lot to do with this, following the Balfour declaration of 1917 and the Sykes Picot agreement of 1916. An excellent book on the area is Line in the Sand by James Barr. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We never had a 'Middle East problem' until 1948 when the newly crowned world rulers the USA created Israel removing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process.
You'll find we have a lot to do with this, following the Balfour declaration of 1917 and the Sykes Picot agreement of 1916. An excellent book on the area is Line in the Sand by James Barr. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"
And as for Britain we haven't colonised a country for over two hundred years so I don't think your argument stands scrutiny. And every country we did colonise has stood the test of time pretty well after Independence. Even the USA ..."
Odds bodkins! The last colonies we gained were in the 1940s when we conquered them from the Italians. Prior to this, we were awarded a number of mandate territories following the Great War. We gained a lot of Africa following the Berlin Congress of 1878.
As for these places standing the test of time, Colonial India was a mess, with the great rebellion of 1857 and partition when we withdrew in 1947 with a lot of bloodshed. Rhodesia, which went UDI in 1965 had a bloody civil war, Nigeria had problems, their was a series of coups in much of Africa (think Idi Amin), we meddled in the internal affairs of many of our ex colonies, such as Guyana.
I'm also pretty sure if you had asked anyone in these far flung places who they wanted to run the show, they wouldn't have said us.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Officially mossad was created with the Israeli state.
Before that the same group carried out all the Israeli terrorism on both Palestinians and the British. And I would add the British leaving an unarmed Palestinian people to a fully armed militia like mossad who systematically cleansed Palestinian villages only 24 hours later was probably one of the worst decisions in history."
We didn't leave anyone my friend. The British Army was there until the UN vote that created Israel and then forced to leave .. so have some respect for the 740+ British who died protecting Palestinians from the Stern Gangs, Zionists and thousands of illegal refugees.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Odds bodkins! The last colonies we gained were in the 1940s when we conquered them from the Italians. Prior to this, we were awarded a number of mandate territories following the Great War. We gained a lot of Africa following the Berlin Congress of 1878.
As for these places standing the test of time, Colonial India was a mess, with the great rebellion of 1857 and partition when we withdrew in 1947 with a lot of bloodshed. Rhodesia, which went UDI in 1965 had a bloody civil war, Nigeria had problems, their was a series of coups in much of Africa (think Idi Amin), we meddled in the internal affairs of many of our ex colonies, such as Guyana.
I'm also pretty sure if you had asked anyone in these far flung places who they wanted to run the show, they wouldn't have said us. "
India was partitioned to avoid a bloodbath and became two separate countries both with working Governments and infrastructure. What they did with it after is hardly down to us.
Same with Rhodesia. It was the most successful exporter of food and produce in Southern Africa even after UDI until Mugabe. Again hardly our fault. Same with Nigeria. Why didn't you blame South African Apartheid on the Brits? What happened there was after we left them to it.
In the end all people can judge a country by is can it operate independently and does it have a working Government? I would suggest most did. What happens later is for them and not the previous colonial power surely? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You'll find we have a lot to do with this, following the Balfour declaration of 1917 and the Sykes Picot agreement of 1916. An excellent book on the area is Line in the Sand by James Barr. "
I won't repeat my detailed reply about Sykes-Picot and Balfour which is above suffice to mention that The British were mandated as the Protecting Power by International agreement and why it became 'The Palestinian Protectorate'. Balfour indicated a place for Jewish people to have a place to live in Palestine alongside Palestinian Arabs already there who were Jewish, Christian and Muslim. It lasted for 30 years very well. Balfour never agreed to what the Zionists did in '46 and on... And we lost 740+ brave people (including my cousin) carrying out that duty to protect ALL Palestinians regardless of religion. Israel was never promised by the British .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Here is that Balfour Declaration:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
the key passage is:
"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which MAY PREJUDICE THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"
So where does it say anything about a separate let alone exclusive Jewish State? Nowhere ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
The Balfour Declaration and Sykes Picot were concluded at around the same time we were promising the Levant and interior to the Arabs and Palestinians in order to gain their support. It didn't last very well at all. There were deaths every year from violence. We had to maintain a large garrison there.
1,000,000 people died during partition, Rhodesia fine till Mugabe took over, Nigeria? Nowt to do with us, Guv. It was all perfectly fine and shipshape when we left it. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with us. It's all down to them.
I disagree. Ref Apartheid, try Diamonds Gold and War - the roots of Apartheid were agreed by us with the Boers at the end of the 2nd Boer war as the price of settlement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Balfour Declaration and Sykes Picot were concluded at around the same time we were promising the Levant and interior to the Arabs and Palestinians in order to gain their support. It didn't last very well at all. There were deaths every year from violence. We had to maintain a large garrison there.
1,000,000 people died during partition, Rhodesia fine till Mugabe took over, Nigeria? Nowt to do with us, Guv. It was all perfectly fine and shipshape when we left it. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with us. It's all down to them.
I disagree. Ref Apartheid, try Diamonds Gold and War - the roots of Apartheid were agreed by us with the Boers at the end of the 2nd Boer war as the price of settlement. "
It seems if a British footprint was anywhere it was our fault ... Still I guess that's the price for being the biggest Empire the world has ever known. And we didn't become that by being really nice guys. But then its always easy with 20 / 20 vision and today's values to park blame on people who had to live by different values with very different capabilities to survive. Just remember it was warships sailing from South Africa that kept payments going to the USA industrial machine that built war materiel for us to fight alone WITH our Empire brothers and sisters in WWII for 3 years before the USA joined. As I said if we were so bad why did so many of our Empire nations join immediately with our war effort? India alone raised the biggest volunteer army in history and paid a terrible price against the Japanese. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Balfour Declaration and Sykes Picot were concluded at around the same time we were promising the Levant and interior to the Arabs and Palestinians in order to gain their support. It didn't last very well at all. There were deaths every year from violence. We had to maintain a large garrison there.
1,000,000 people died during partition, Rhodesia fine till Mugabe took over, Nigeria? Nowt to do with us, Guv. It was all perfectly fine and shipshape when we left it. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with us. It's all down to them.
I disagree. Ref Apartheid, try Diamonds Gold and War - the roots of Apartheid were agreed by us with the Boers at the end of the 2nd Boer war as the price of settlement.
It seems if a British footprint was anywhere it was our fault ... Still I guess that's the price for being the biggest Empire the world has ever known. And we didn't become that by being really nice guys. But then its always easy with 20 / 20 vision and today's values to park blame on people who had to live by different values with very different capabilities to survive. Just remember it was warships sailing from South Africa that kept payments going to the USA industrial machine that built war materiel for us to fight alone WITH our Empire brothers and sisters in WWII for 3 years before the USA joined. As I said if we were so bad why did so many of our Empire nations join immediately with our war effort? India alone raised the biggest volunteer army in history and paid a terrible price against the Japanese."
I really dont want to sound rude, but you must get refreshed on your history |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I really dont want to sound rude, but you must get refreshed on your history"
I don't wish to sound rude but so you say. Care to give an example of where I have been factually wrong (as opposed to an opinion)?
I was challenged on Balfour and quoted it in full to show I was correct...
I look forward to some facts rather than opinions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"I really dont want to sound rude, but you must get refreshed on your history
I don't wish to sound rude but so you say. Care to give an example of where I have been factually wrong (as opposed to an opinion)?
I was challenged on Balfour and quoted it in full to show I was correct...
I look forward to some facts rather than opinions."
And you don't think that promising the Jews a homeland and the culmination of Herzl's dream might not have just had a tiny teeny impact of encouraging immigration there??
You will find that legally the Dominions were at war if we were, there was nothing voluntary on their part at all. Crushing poverty in India and indentured labour might have just had something to do with them and don't forget there were Indians fighting against us, too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I
And you don't think that promising the Jews a homeland and the culmination of Herzl's dream might not have just had a tiny teeny impact of encouraging immigration there??
You will find that legally the Dominions were at war if we were, there was nothing voluntary on their part at all. Crushing poverty in India and indentured labour might have just had something to do with them and don't forget there were Indians fighting against us, too. "
Well promising a homeland for Jews, thousands of whom were already living in Palestine, is not, and Balfour was very specific as I outlined, the same as agreeing to the extermination of the resident Muslims and Christians who were also living there. Please read Balfour again and tell us where an EXCLUSIVE Jewish state was offered let alone agreed to as you say.
If the Dominions were so obliged why did each have to make its own Declaration of war? For example:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/australia_at_war.htm
And you confuse some disaffected ex prisoners with the millions who fought in all theatres. This may help you:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/remembering-muslim-fought.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
I get the impression that no matter what facts are presented to you, even if 99% support a differing view point, you will quite happily seize on the bit that supports your line. There's no point arguing with you over this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I
And you don't think that promising the Jews a homeland and the culmination of Herzl's dream might not have just had a tiny teeny impact of encouraging immigration there??
You will find that legally the Dominions were at war if we were, there was nothing voluntary on their part at all. Crushing poverty in India and indentured labour might have just had something to do with them and don't forget there were Indians fighting against us, too.
Well promising a homeland for Jews, thousands of whom were already living in Palestine, is not, and Balfour was very specific as I outlined, the same as agreeing to the extermination of the resident Muslims and Christians who were also living there. Please read Balfour again and tell us where an EXCLUSIVE Jewish state was offered let alone agreed to as you say.
If the Dominions were so obliged why did each have to make its own Declaration of war? For example:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/australia_at_war.htm
And you confuse some disaffected ex prisoners with the millions who fought in all theatres. This may help you:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/remembering-muslim-fought.html"
May be India should have a national holiday to celebrated the British ocupation of their land! Britain, Spain, France, Holand, Itally were all all in competition for land grabbing and slave trading the last cpl centuries. Colonisation has never taken into account the interest of the ppl of the land they occupied. It has been the greatest human desaster for each one of those nations during and after the ocupation, including America. You said that those nation has passed the time test and the USA has become a great nation after the British occupation. May it has for the European invaders not for the legitimate people of that land. The natives has simply been eliminated from existance almost to the last one of them.
You talk about colonising those nations was a good thing for them. That's what the Empire has always claimed and you are adobting this historical lie. The problem is that empire has been hijacked by the USA. Taken a modern shape. Disguised under the fight for democracy and human rights. Sounds like the human rights brought from the west to the east is death and domination. Britain is joining the USA in every step on this global evil to be on the winning side.
When you talk about history try to check some non western historical sources if you are looking for the truth.
All the occupied nations joined the fight in WW1 and WW2. Do you think if they were independant they would? Certainly not unless their national sexurity comes under threat. Unlike the image wh you are trying to paint here, none of them have joined for the love of their colonisers. They haven't had a choice. Take Algeria for example. Thousands of Algerians died fighting for the French. Did the Algerians love France so much that they took the arms against the Germans? History as taught in France and as taught in Algeria are shockingly different. If you ask the Algerians they tell you that France promised them indepandence if they fight and the Germans are defeated. After the war. They denied them any hope for indepandence and Deugol said it plainly : "Algeria is French and will always be" 100's of thousands of Algerian ppl went to the streets protesting and they were crashed by the tanks and rifles. 45 thousands civilian killed on that day by the French army. So please try to hear the other side of the story before you believe everything you have been taught in the schools and told in the media.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Thread has gone off track but such is the forums.
Interesting to see fresh calls for a British inquiry following today's revelations that the UK asked for parts of the American report to be left out of the public eye. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I get the impression that no matter what facts are presented to you, even if 99% support a differing view point, you will quite happily seize on the bit that supports your line. There's no point arguing with you over this. "
I get the impression you don't like differing opinions and can't see I am quoting from factual accounts that support my statements and therefore where I get my information from and, where it is just my opinion, I say so. All I asked for was a factual contradictory link.
Not sure 99% have supported a different view ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
