"Well Jim, common-sense would lead one...."
If you can't see from the off why it is dodgy (to say the least) to use the judgement of a serial human rights offender as a guide to who is or who is not a terrorist, I really can't see any point in pursuing this line of discussion.
"I was not aware that I do support repressive regimes"
Israel certainly, for its treatment of the Palestinians for which (hopefully) it will eventually appear before a war-crimes tribunal; America's record on torture which you dismiss as hearsay despite the documentary and photographic evidence.
That'll do for a start, but I'm sure more will emerge as time passes.
"fancy a list of Islamic States that are undoubtedly governed by repressive regimes?"
Fancy a list of Christian ones guilty of horrendous human rights abuses?
As far as I'm concerned religion (any religion) and politics is a toxic mix , and to isolate any particular one as being more guilty than the rest is, to say the least, being economical with the facts.
Democracy, as desirable as it is, has little influence on the behaviour of some 'civilised' countries.
"Pronounced "Guilty" based on your own biased opinion – more left-wing hypocrisy."
Britain's record on the Iraq invasion speaks for itself; no bias, left-wing or otherwise needed.
"he should be put on the next flight to Addis Ababa."
He has accused the UK of being involved in torture; there are grounds for believing that there is substance to his accusations so he should be allowed to stay at least until the matter is cleared up. Does anybody really believe that he was given the treatment he was by Britain following his release as a humane gesture on their part?
Jim Carroll