BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 10:39 AM

And 100!!

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 09 - 10:38 AM

Name calling belongs in the school-yard, not in serious debate; it is a useful indication of the mental level of the person who indulges in it, as is the fact that those who indulge in it squeal in whine when others respond in kind, just as you have done." - declares Jim Carroll.

You mean like these examples:

Torpidness - 03 Mar 09 - 03:37 AM

Torybus - 22 Feb 09 - 01:03 PM

Terminus - 22 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM

Trolleybus - 22 Feb 09 - 09:08 AM

Terrapin - 23 Feb 09 - 01:11 PM

Terrytoon - 24 Feb 09 - 03:57 AM

The above by the bye are examples of Jim Carroll skillfully and thoughtfully using "Name Calling" as an art-form.

Christmas (the use of which indicates some level of literacy) goes on to say:

"I am quite happy with my name and do not feel the need to hide behind a pretentious, arrogant and aggressive pseudonym as apparently you do."

Well we can only take your word for that can't we Jim, as we have no way of knowing whether Jim Carroll is indeed your real name or a complete work of fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:38 PM

"would this be the same guardians of law and order who have just overseen the slaughter of half a cricket team by any chance"

Avast there Jim Lad - Jumpin' in with both feet again (the above being a perfect example).

Talking about "bottling out" and avoiding question Christmas:

- The UK never questioned Binyam Mohammed, they couldn't have, he was never in UK custody. So how did they torture him??

- "Abu Graib, Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Concentration Camp, special rendition, collateral damage, Viet Nam, Napalm, Agent Orange, Mai Li, Grenada, military and political support for Pinochet, Papa Doc, the Contras" - When and where did I ever deny that any of that took place. If you are trying to say that I have then please produce proof of that. - But you cannot do that can you. Told you before, don't put words into my mouth or take me to task for opinions and positions on issues that I do not hold.

- So we went into Iraq to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction" did we Christmas?? Where on earth did you get that notion from??

- "defence of your racist ideas," If you are trying to say that my ideas are racist then please produce proof of that.

- "support of the actions of state terrorist regimes" If you are trying to say that I support the actions of state terrorist regimes then please produce proof of that.

- "debase a group of British workers" When and where did I ever debase any group of British workers. Please produce proof of that.

- As far as name calling goes I take it that you would like to create the impression that you above that would you you??

"Name calling belongs in the school-yard, not in serious debate; it is a useful indication of the mental level of the person who indulges in it, as is the fact that those who indulge in it squeal in whine when others respond in kind, just as you have done."

Pssst Jim do you want me to give you listed examples of your "name calling".

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 04:04 AM

The Daily Express is definately vile, he got that right.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: cobra
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:50 AM

Well said Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:45 AM

PS To those foolish enough to have hung around and followed this pointless and mind-numbing dialogue.
Richard Bridge started this worthwhile and humane thread and once again my knee-jerk detestation of the three Rs (rabid right-wing ranting), has led me to monopolising it - my apologies, it won't happen again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:36 AM

A last word,
Once again, as I predicted, you have done your usual trick of making statements and, when challenged, have bottled out and claimed that that is not what you said, or not what you meant, or it is all a left-wing plot.
Your cut-n-paste technique of searching out answers to ideas you have not previously thought through makes arguing with you both uninformative and unedifying.
When you find yourself in a corner you resort to sneering and invective.
So far, at least as far as I have been involved, you have used the same technique in defence of your racist ideas, in support of the actions of state terrorist regimes and to debase a group of British workers whose toenails you are not fit to trim.
I suggest you go and find a wall to scrawl some graffiti on - that is just about the level of your debating technique.
Name calling:
I think I was last called 'Christmas' when I was in junior school, after which, my would-be tormentors matured a little and graduated to something a little more adult like 'Lewis' (probably over your head), or "Carroll's a girl's name", or as mildly amusing as 'Jim-l-fix-it'.
Name calling belongs in the school-yard, not in serious debate; it is a useful indication of the mental level of the person who indulges in it, as is the fact that those who indulge in it squeal in whine when others respond in kind, just as you have done.
Used skilfully and thoughtfully it is an art-form - in your case it is merely a clue to your lack of imagination and intelligence.
Personally, I am at home with whatever people choose to call me. I am quite happy with my name and do not feel the need to hide behind a pretentious, arrogant and aggressive pseudonym as apparently you do. War cry my arse - get a life
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:05 PM

Now lets see what we've got:"

I've got a better idea Christmas; let's see what you haven't got:

•        "1 We go to a consistent human rights abuser for our information of who is or who is not a terrorist - would this be the same guardians of law and order who have just overseen the slaughter of half a cricket team by any chance - yeh, I suppose that makes sense!!!"

Who's the "we" Christmas, the UK? The UK never questioned Binyam Mohammed, they couldn't have, he was never in UK custody.

Who would know who was, or who was not, a terrorist, someone with extremely good contacts and dialogue with the terrorists or someone who hasn't the foggiest notion where to start looking for the information?

My take on the conduct and degree of interrogation that Binyam Mohammed would accord exactly with what Al-Qaeda/the Taleban told the Pakistani Authorities about him. They told the Pakistani's that here was a guy with a British resident's permit who was going home to become part of the next spectacular – a "dirty bomb" wasn't it – while useless under training he now serves the cause by being a hi-profile "red-herring".

•        "2 Abu Graib, Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Concentration Camp, special rendition, collateral damage, Viet Nam, Napalm, Agent Orange, Mai Li, Grenada, military and political support for Pinochet, Papa Doc, the Contras.... and all the other 20th century monsters.... none of this ever really happened and is just a left wing invention by those of us who don't believe the sun shines out of the U.S.'s arse."

I don't believe anybody here is denying any of that happened, nobody is saying that it was an invention on the part of anybody. If you are trying to say that I have then please produce proof of that.

•        "3 The British government didn't really lead us into an illegal war in search of the mythical holy grail of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' because their White House Boss told them to."

So we went into Iraq to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction" did we Christmas?? Where on earth did you get that notion from?? Certainly not from UNSC Resolution 1441, or from UNSC Resolutions 678 or 687.


•        "4 And last, but certainly not least; a man illegally detained by the heroes of number 3 over the last few years, returns from detention with a claim that he has been tortured and that the British SS colluded in providing information to facilitate his treatment."

Returns from detention?? If he was indeed returning from detention he would have gone to Pakistan wouldn't he, or perhaps his own native land Ethiopia, the place he has a passport from, the place he was born and brought up. He has no right to return to the UK, his previously issued temporary permit expired in 2004.

•        "Having previously agreed that he is innocent until proved guilty, and not having heard ANY of the evidence of his claim, you have decided (presumably with insider knowledge which you are unable to share with us at this present time) that his story (which story? - he hasn't had a chance to tell it yet - or isn't that necessary under your version of justice) is Cock-and-Bull, and want to ship him back to where he came from before he can give his account (and maybe drops Britain in the clarts again) -
Thank you for such a perfect example of 'lynch-mob mentality."

1.        I have agreed that he is innocent until proven guilty. I have also stated that I believe the point is moot as he is not going to be charged with anything in the UK.
2.        Where have I said that his story is "cock-and-bull" – And before you break your wrist activating the scroll down here is what I said in context:

"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." - Christmas

"Why?? Why should he be allowed to stay?? Under that reasoning all anyone would have to do is invent some "cock-and-bull" story and then demand to stay until it is cleared up - Bollocks."

See the wording of the sentence that contains the expression "cock-and-bull".

Find out who the six "slaughtered" cricketers were then Christmas – the left's not into over egging the pudding is it Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 12:03 PM

Beg pardon,
The report we got last night said the 8 dead were cricketers - as it transpires, that was not the case; 7 cricketers, a coach and an umpire were wounded and 8 'others' killed.
I'm sure you are now going to tell us that this misinformation makes the Pakistan military a reliable source of information on terrorism, despite the fact that the Chief of Police has apologised for the behaviour of the police during the massacre, and we all saw the policeman who pretended to be dead beside the coach do a little victory dance and raise his arms in triumph - for a job well done, no doubt!
Please make your point.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:26 AM

When were half a cricket team slaughtered then Christmas??

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 03:49 AM

Now lets see what we've got:
1   We go to a consistent human rights abuser for our information of who is or who is not a terrorist - would this be the same guardians of law and order who have just overseen the slaughter of half a cricket team by any chance - yeh, I suppose that makes sense!!!
2   Abu Graib, Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Concentration Camp, special rendition, collateral damage, Viet Nam, Napalm, Agent Orange, Mai Li, Grenada, military and political support for Pinochet, Papa Doc, the Contras.... and all the other 20th century monsters.... none of this ever really happened and is just a left wing invention by those of us who don't believe the sun shines out of the U.S.'s arse.
3   The British government didn't really lead us into an illegal war in search of the mythical holy grail of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' because their White House Boss told them to.
4   And last, but certainly not least; a man illegally detained by the heroes of number 3 over the last few years, returns from detention with a claim that he has been tortured and that the British SS colluded in providing information to facilitate his treatment. Having previously agreed that he is innocent until proved guilty, and not having heard ANY of the evidence of his claim, you have decided (presumably with insider knowledge which you are unable to share with us at this present time) that his story (which story? - he hasn't had a chance to tell it yet - or isn't that necessary under your version of justice) is Cock-and-Bull, and want to ship him back to where he came from before he can give his account (and maybe drops Britain in the clarts again) -
Thank you for such a perfect example of 'lynch-mob mentality.
What do you sprinkle on your porridge to keep out these cold Border mornings???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 09 - 01:02 AM

Facts remain:
•       He is an Ethiopian, not a British citizen
•       He has no right of residence in the UK
•       He was an asylum seeker whose case was rejected by Britain
•       He was arrested by the authorities in Pakistan and handed over to US Custody - At no time was he ever held by British Authorities.

"He has accused the UK of being involved in torture" - How?? Because British security services asked those who were interrogating him to ask him certain questions over the phone?? Because British security services told those interrogating him facts about his asylum application over the telephone?? The whole thing is bloody ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:00 PM

"it has nothing to do with attitude to human rights"
Another repressive regime to add to your collection
"Tells more about your bias than your common-sense."
Read the book, see the film, get the tee-shirt!
"cock-and-bull" story"
Innocent till proved guilty huh!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 10:52 AM

Ah Christmas, it has nothing to do with attitude to human rights, the Pakistani authorities are more in the know about the Taleban and Al-Qaeda than anyone else. They helped set them up and were one of only three Governments in the World to recognise them as the "legal" government of Afghanistan. I would have thought that they would be ideally placed to know, or be told through the grape-vine, if someone had been in an Al-Qaeda Training Camp. I can also think of many reasons why Al-Qaeda, or the Taleban would tip the Pakistani Authorities off with regard to "alleged trainee" Binyam Mohammed to make them look good in the "War against Teror". I mean let's face it someone in withdrawal from drug addiction ain't going to do so well in training up in the mountains as some of the "home-grown" lads. On paper he'd be an excellent prospect - Ethiopian, Muslim, British Resident - terrific potential "sleeper". Then the man himself turns up strung out to hell and absolutely useless, they write him off as a complete and utter waste of space and dob him in to the Pakistani Authorities so as to get them off their backs for a while.

So let's see by your definition Israel, the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are "repressive" regimes eh?? Tells more about your bias than your common-sense.

"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."

Why?? Why should he be allowed to stay?? Under that reasoning all anyone would have to do is invent some "cock-and-bull" story and then demand to stay until it is cleared up - Bollocks. Ethiopia, best place for him - apparently he doesn't like the cold weather in the UK. His lawyers can carry on the "good fight" in his absence - Oh and there are no substantive grounds backing up his story as far as have been reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:23 AM

"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

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:36 AM

I would have thought that citing a country with Pakistan's human rights record as a guide for arresting a suspected terrorist a bit off the beam even for your crassness"

Well Jim, common-sense would lead one to the conclusion that as far as arresting someone on suspicion of being an Al-Qaeda terrorist goes, has got a hell of a lot more to do with how much they (the "arresting" authorities) know about Al-Qaeda than it has to do with their human rights record.

"I'm sure we are about to be told that ……..it is all left-wing propaganda, - even though it is well in line with your support for other repressive regimes."

I was not aware that I do support repressive regimes – anything at all to back that up, or is this just your usual scattergun, "lash-out-blindly" approach? Or do you count Israel as a repressive regime?? Rather strange that – apart from Iraq, Israel is the only other democracy in the entire middle-east region. What are there Jim something like 22 Arab States in the world and the only one that actually conducts open, free and fair elections (According to the United Nations) is Iraq – courtesy of George W. Bush.

"but Pakistan is after all an Islamic Republic" suggesting that Islam automatically means repression, I suppose."

See above Jimbo, fancy a list of Islamic States that are undoubtedly governed by repressive regimes?? You'll actually be hard pressed to find one that isn't.

"I have no idea if Binyam Mohammed is a terrorist, though I'm sure if he was the evidence would have been produced by now to prove the case. As it is, he is innocent in the eyes of the law until charged and convicted."

Of course he is innocent until proven guilty, who has said otherwise. But as he was never brought to trial there has never been any opportunity to bring what evidence existed into the public domain, therefore just as you do not know if he was a terrorist, you also do not know what evidence exists.

"Was he tortured? Why not; that is now standard practice with the U.S. in its quaintly termed "War against tourism" (Thanks for that one Dubya)."

Standard practice?? Hardly. But I see that you are fully prepared to condemn on hearsay when it suits your argument – I shouldn't be surprised typical left-wing hypocrisy.

"Was Britain involved? Again, why not; it is well within line with its lickspittle policy of acting like a U.S. poodle, and it explains why Binyam Mohammed was given red-carpet treatment."

Pronounced "Guilty" based on your own biased opinion – more left-wing hypocrisy.

"I find the lynch-mob mentality that surfaces in these cases a terrifying confirmation of the 'Lord of the Flies' philosophy that if you scratch a civilised society you will find barbarism lurking just below the surface. As I said, innocent until conclusively and openly proved guilty."

As Binyam Mohammed is not going to be charged with anything or tried then his "guilt" or "innocence" is a moot point. I wasn't aware that anyone was out to "lynch" anyone.

Facts remain:
•        He is an Ethiopian citizen
•        He is not a British citizen
•        He has no rights of residence in the UK
•        He was a failed asylum seeker whose case was rejected
•        He was arrested by the authorities in Pakistan and handed over to US Custody

Should he be allowed to remain in the UK – most certainly not, he should be put on the next flight to Addis Ababa. That has nothing to do with whether he was a member of Al-Qaeda or not. It has got nothing to do with whether he was a terrorist or not. It has got nothing to do with his religion or politics. It has got everything to do with where he is from.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 07:04 AM

"None of us have any evidence that the British secret service was involved and anyway that wouldn't qualify him for British benefits."
Yeah - torture the bastard then send him back to where he belongs - or alternatively, send him back to where he belongs before he gets a chance to implicate Britain in torture.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:22 AM

If Binyam Mohammed has been tortured then I have sympathy with him, whether he is a terrorist or not; no living creature should be tortured.

He is called a British resident, but he is not. He was refused asylum in 1994, and given exceptional leave to stay in the UK until 2004; before which time he had already illegally sublet his flat and disappeared off to Afghanistan to "experience" the Taleban. Would he still want to go back there since the agreement to stop fighting and impose Sharia law?

He is an Ethiopian, the US imprisoned him in Guantanamo so why should he be flown to the UK on a private jet at a cost of £250,000 to the British taxpayers? We were led to believe that he was skin and bone and close to death's door, which may have justified special and expensive transportation costs, but he walked unaided from the jet. I'm pleased about that, I don't wish him ill.

He has accused the British secret service of being part of harsh treatment, he says that he received, based on some of the questions that were asked him. None of us have any evidence that the British secret service was involved and anyway that wouldn't qualify him for British benefits.

Why has he not gone to Ethiopia, America, or Pakistan where he was arrested?

What has he got to do with Britain? As well as funding bankers' pensions and goodness knows what else the British taxpayer is now having to pay towards his legal costs and his living costs and the cost of getting him to the UK. It is not surprising that The Daily Express wrote that report.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 04:21 AM

And meanwhile they try to kill the Sri Lanka cricket team and succeding in killing many policemen.

You lot can be as soft as you like, but you are not helping eradicate these terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 09 - 03:37 AM

"Avast there Jim Lad - Jumpin' in with both feet again."
Hi Torpidness; still trying to dig yourself out of your self-dug holes with your mouth?
I would have thought that citing a country with Pakistan's human rights record as a guide for arresting a suspected terrorist a bit off the beam even for your crassness - I'm sure we are about to be told that this is not what you said, or what you mean, or that it is all left-wing propaganda, - even though it is well in line with your support for other repressive regimes (I understand your incontinent military butcher friends stand to be taken before a war-crimes court - let's see, shall we).
"Yes Pakistan's human rights record is poor, along with the human rights record of many other countries"- signifying what - that it's ok to abuse human rights if other countries do it - red herring!!!
Those 'other countries' guilty of abusing human rights can now include the U.S. in their not so distinguished ranks - or maybe internment without trial, 'extreme rendition', and torture flights to countries not so fussy in their uses of torture are yet another left-wing invention.
"but Pakistan is after all an Islamic Republic" suggesting that Islam automatically means repression, I suppose. Not being in any way religious I couldn't possibly comment, except to say that I'm sure the U.S. would describe itself as 'Christian', even though it indulges in torture and humiliation.
I have no idea if Binyam Mohammed is a terrorist, though I'm sure if he was the evidence would have been produced by now to prove the case. As it is, he is innocent in the eyes of the law until charged and convicted.
Was he tortured? Why not; that is now standard practice with the U.S. in its quaintly termed "War against tourism" (Thanks for that one Dubya).
Was Britain involved? Again, why not; it is well within line with its lickspittle policy of acting like a U.S. poodle, and it explains why Binyam Mohammed was given red-carpet treatment.
"If it's got feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it's pretty certain to be a duck."
I find the lynch-mob mentality that surfaces in these cases a terrifying confirmation of the 'Lord of the Flies' philosophy that if you scratch a civilised society you will find barbarism lurking just below the surface. As I said,innocent until conclusively and openly proved guilty.
This thread started on the strength (is that the word I'm looking for) of a news item in the pages of a true representative of Britain's sewer press. Sewers are invariably populated by vermin living off the waste matter of society.
Bon appétit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: meself
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:26 PM

"why introduce something he said into this?"

Because your remark, immediately following Villan's and Richard's, seemed to be a response to theirs. I suppose that's my limited intellect at work again.

As for my "anti-establishment agenda": very insightful; I didn't realize I had one. I deduce then - warning: workings of limited intellect ahead - that if I don't agree with you, I have an "anti-establishment agenda"?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 01:45 PM

Avast there Jim Lad - Jumpin' in with both feet again.

"The usual suspects defending human rights abuses - including illegal imprisonment and torture." - Jim

Now where is anyone defending human rights abuses?? Please specify, give us all a direct quote that would substantiate that observation of yours.

"One other thing about BM's capture - he was arrested by the Pakistani Authorities - who on balance have probably a greater working knowledge of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban than any other organisation in the world, they undoubtedly have the best contacts." - Me

Is that supposed to indicate that I defend "human rights abuses" Jimbo??

"Pakistan's human rights record is generally regarded as poor by domestic and international observers, although there have been some improvements since 2000." - Either Jim or an article he has cut'n'pasted.

Yes Pakistan's human rights record is poor, along with the human rights record of many other countries and regimes dotted round the planet. The remaining content of your post backs that up admirably, but Pakistan is after all an Islamic Republic and much of what you catalogue is considered by some Muslim clerics to be perfectly acceptable behaviour if not even commendable.

None of which alters or contradicts one jot of what I said about "Pakistani Authorities - who on balance have probably a greater working knowledge of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban than any other organisation in the world, they undoubtedly have the best contacts."

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 01:21 PM

I thought that was a bit strange BWM.

I have said all I want to say on the matter. I have openly stated my case and stand by it.

If the guy is truly innocent then let him be. If he isn't.... Well I better not say anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 12:36 PM

I can't answer for Villan. I don't know anything about his opinions or his motivation, so why introduce something he said into this?

'"So - if it's Moslem, brown and tortured, it's pretty certain to be a terrorist?"

Try intead:-

If he's a young, disaffected Muslim man, with a history of drug problems (and therefore probably psychological problems as well), and he's attended an Al'Quaeda terrorist-training camp, (all of which reportedly apply to BM), he's pretty certain to have at least a mild interest in behaving like a terrorist.

So, you either deliberately misinterpreted what I said, or you couldn't be bothered to think about what I said in the context of the reporting of this issue, or you haven't the intellect to think beyond the confines of your own anti-establishment agenda. I don't know for sure which of those apply and, frankly, I don't give a FF. I have my opinion, you have yours. Mine's as valid as yours, end of.

Now go away and bait someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: meself
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 12:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: The Villan - PM
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:21 PM

.......

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, until those gits stop doing such atrocoties, then as far as I am concerned, they can go to hell.


Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM

But, Villan, apart from prejudice, you have no reason to believe that Binyan Mohammed is such a person.

.....

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:45 PM

If it's got feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it's pretty certain to be a duck.



Please explain to me how I have "deliberately misinterpreted" your words. Seriously. I assure that if I did misinterpret your words, it was not deliberate, and I apologize. However, I cannot see how I misinterpreted them.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 04:10 AM

The usual suspects defending human rights abuses - including illegal imprisonment and torture.
"One other thing about BM's capture - he was arrested by the Pakistani Authorities - who on balance have probably a greater working knowledge of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban than any other organisation in the world, they undoubtedly have the best contacts."

"Pakistan's human rights record is generally regarded as poor by domestic and international observers, although there have been some improvements since 2000.

Pakistan's security forces use excessive and sometimes lethal force and are complicit in extrajudicial killings of civilians and suspected militants. The police and military have been accused of engaging in physical abuse, rape, and arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly in areas of acute conflict.

Although the government has enacted measures to counter these problems, abuses continue. Furthermore, courts suffer from lack of funds, outside intervention, and deep case backlogs that lead to long trial delays and lengthy pretrial detentions. Many observers inside and outside Pakistan contend that Pakistan's legal code is largely concerned with crime, national security, and domestic tranquility and less with the protection of individual rights.

The report Freedom in the World 2006 by Freedom House gave Pakistan a political rights rating of 4 (1 representing free and 7 representing not free), and a civil liberties rating of 5, earning it the designation of partly free.


Political abuse of Human Rights

Provincial and local governments have arrested journalists and closed newspapers that report on matters perceived as socially offensive or critical of the government. Journalists also have been victims of violence and intimidation by various groups and individuals. In spite of these difficulties, the press publishes freely, although journalists often exercise self-restraint in their writing.

The 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act, which established Anti Terrorism Court, and subsequent anti-terrorist legislation, has arisen concerns about protection of fundamental rights.

In 2002 citizens participated in general elections, but those elections were criticized as deeply flawed by domestic and international observers. Societal actors also are responsible for human rights abuses. Violence by drug lords and sectarian militias claims numerous innocent lives, discrimination and violence against women are widespread, human trafficking is problematic, and debt slavery and bonded labor persist.

The government often ignores abuses against children and religious minorities, and government institutions and some Muslim groups have persecuted non-Muslims and used some laws as the legal basis for doing so. The Blasphemy Law, for example, allows life imprisonment or the death penalty for contravening Islamic principles, but legislation was passed in October 2004 to eliminate misuse of the law.

Furthermore, the social acceptance of many these problems hinders their eradication. One prominent example is honor killings ("karo kari"), which are believed to have accounted for more than 4,000 deaths from 1998 to 2003[citation needed]. Many view this practice as indicative of a feudal mentality and as an anathema to Islam, but others defend the practice as a means of punishing violators of cultural norms and view attempts to stop it to as an assault on cultural heritage.

Pakistan was recommended by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in May to be designated as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) by the Department of State because of its government's engagement or toleration of systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom [1].

Human Rights Violations of Christians
In Pakistan, 1.5% of the population are Christian. Pakistani law mandates that any "blasphemies" of the Quran are to be met with punishment. On July 28, 1994, Amnesty International urged Pakistan's Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto to change the law because it was being used to terrorize religious minorities. She tried but was unsuccessful. However, she modified the laws to make them more moderate. Her changes were reversed by the Nawaz Sharif administration which was backed by Religious/Political parties.

Ayub Masih, a Christian, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998. He was accused by a neighbor of stating that he supported British writer, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Lower appeals courts upheld the conviction. However, before the Pakistan Supreme Court, his lawyer was able to prove that the accuser had used the conviction to force Mashi's family off their land and then acquired control of the property. Masih has been released [1].

On September 22, 2006, a Pakistani Christian named Shahid Masih was arrested and jailed for allegedly violating Islamic "blasphemy laws" in Pakistan. He is presently held in confinement and has expressed fear of reprisals by Islamic Fundamentalists[2].

[edit] Attacks on Pakistani Christians by Islamists

On October 28, 2001 in Lahore, Pakistan, Islamic militants killed 15 Christians at a church. On September 25, 2002 two terrorists entered the "Peace and Justice Institute", Karachi, where they separated Muslims from the Christians, and then executed eight Christians by shooting them in the head.[citation needed]

On September 25, 2002, unidentified gunmen shot dead seven people at a Christian charity in Karachi's central business district. They entered the third-floor offices of the Institute for Peace and Justice (IPJ) and shot their victims in the head. All of the victims were Pakistani Christians. Karachi police chief Tariq Jamil said the victims had their hands tied and their mouths had been covered with tape. Pakistani Christians have alleged that they have "become increasingly victimised since the launch of the US-led international war on terror."[3]

In November 2005, 3,000 militant Islamists attacked Christians in Sangla Hill in Pakistan and destroyed Roman Catholic, Salvation Army and United Presbyterian churches. The attack was over allegations of violation of blasphemy laws by a Pakistani Christian named Yousaf Masih. The attacks were widely condemned by some political parties in Pakistan[4]. However, Pakistani Christians have expressed disappointment that they have not received justice. Samson Dilawar, a parish priest in Sangla Hill, has said that the police have not committed to trial any of the people who were arrested for committing the assaults, and that the Pakistani government did not inform the Christian community that a judicial inquiry was underway by a local judge. He continued to say that Muslim clerics "make hateful speeches about Christians" and "continue insulting Christians and our faith".[5].

In February 2006, churches and Christian schools were targeted in protests over the publications of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in Denmark, leaving two elderly women injured and many homes and properties destroyed. Some of the mobs were stopped by police[6].

In August 2006, a church and Christian homes were attacked in a village outside of Lahore, Pakistan in a land dispute. Three Christians were seriously injured and one missing after some 35 Muslims burned buildings, desecrated Bibles and attacked Christians[7].

Based, in part, on such incidents, Pakistan was recommended by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in May 2006 to be designated as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) by the Department of State.[7].


Human Rights Violations on Hindus
There have been severe persecution of Hindus by Muslims in Pakistan since its formation in 1947. The increasing Islamization has caused many Hindus to leave Hinduism and seek emancipation by converting to other faiths such as Buddhism and Christianity. Such Islamization include the blasphemy laws, which make it dangerous for religious minorities to express themselves freely and engage freely in religious and cultural activities [8]

Minority members of the Pakistan National Assembly have alleged that Hindus were being hounded and humiliated to force them to leave Pakistan.[9] Hindu women have been known to be victims of kidnapping and forced conversion to Islam.[10] Krishan Bheel, a Hindu member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, came into news recently for manhandling Qari Gul Rehman.[11]

Hindus in what is now Pakistan have declined from 23 % of the total population in 1947 to less than 2% today. The report condemns Pakistan for systematic state-sponsored religious discrimination against Hindus through bigoted "anti-blasphemy" laws. It documents numerous reports of millions of Hindus being held as "bonded laborers" in slavery-like conditions in rural Pakistan, something repeatedly ignored by the Pakistani government.

Forced and coerced conversions of religious minorities to Islam occurred at the hands of societal actors. Religious minorities claimed that government actions to stem the problem were inadequate. Several human rights groups have highlighted the increased phenomenon of Hindu girls, particularly in Karachi, being kidnapped from their families and forced to convert to Islam.

Kidnapping charges were pending against a Muslim man who abducted a fifteen-year-old Christian, Samina Izhaq, and forced her to convert in August 2004.

On September 2, 2005, Ghulam Abbas and Mohammad Kashif reportedly drugged and kidnapped Riqba Masih, a Christian woman, from the village of Chak, Punjab, and took her to Lahore. The kidnappers repeatedly raped Masih and threatened to kill her and her family if she did not convert to Islam but Masih refused. On September 3, 2005, another unidentified accomplice took Masih into custody and detained her until September 6, 2005, raping her repeatedly. Later that day, the kidnappers took Masih to Faisalabad and abandoned her at a bus stop from where she made her way to her parents' home. Police arrested Ghulam Abbas and Mohammad Kashif and charged them with kidnapping and rape. Following an October 24, 2005, hearing in which a Faisalabad court denied bail, Kashif escaped from the courtroom and remained at large at the end of the reporting period. Abbas remained in police custody, and police are attempting to find Kashif[2].

On October 18, 2005, Sanno Amra and Champa, a Hindu couple residing in the Punjab Colony, Karachi, Sindh returned home to find that their three teenage daughters had disappeared. After inquiries to the local police, the couple discovered that their daughters had been taken to a local madrassah, had been converted to Islam, and were denied unsupervised contact with their parents[3].

Human Rights Violations on Muslims
Several minority Muslim communities, such as the Mojahir and the Ahmadiyya have been attacked in pogroms in Pakistan over the years [12]. Plus, the ethnic Balochi have allegedly been severely discriminated against, leading them to start a secessionist movement under Nawab Akbar Bugti called the balochistan Liberation Army."

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:30 AM

Tit-for-tat, meself. You deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote, so I returned the compliment. Some of us try to have a real discussion, others play at silly twats. I can play your stupid, childish game too.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: meself
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 11:27 PM

Backwoodsman - Are you telling me that you actually were talking about waterfowl when you said, "If it quacks, has feathers," etc.? I must have misunderstood. I had, apparently in error, assumed you were utilizing the familiar duck-description for its conventional purpose, i.e., to draw an analogy with a subject under discussion, in this case a terrorism subject. It turns out, it seems, that you had actually just thrown in the description of the duck as a delightful diversion from all this weighty disputation. Consequently, you have given my words a relentlessly literal interpretation, apparently unaware that they were intended to comment sarcastically on what I took to be your thought-process. (Of course, you wouldn't simply pretend to misunderstand now, would you?)

So I apologize for thinking that you actually had some point to make with your duck description. Please feel free to describe other animals whenever the whim strikes you.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 04:07 AM

I don't think I referred to any 'admissions' Richard, maybe you're confusing me with someone else you enjoy poking with a long stick? :-)

And I've already stated categorically, on several posts earlier, that torture is completely unacceptable.

My point is simply that it's sometimes desirable to hold potentially dangerous individuals in custody, in order to investigate with the purpose of either constructing a case against them or exonerating them and, more importantly, in order to prevent harm befalling innocent citizens. As long as that process is conducted in a proper, legally controlled manner, and the detainee is treated with due humanity, I see nothing wrong in it.

Now I really am outta here. You're going to need a very long stick.......   :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 03:12 AM

Be as suspicious as you like - but the arrest, rendition, detention, and treatment of Binyam Mohammed were all illegal, and the English courts have held that the evidence they saw but that was barred from publication established a prima facie case that Binyam Mohammed had been tortured.

And, incidentally, what do you think extracted the admissions to which you refer above?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 02:31 AM

McG, introducing Tony Bliar into this discussion is a red herring (for which you have some notoriety - remember your totally spurious 'cup of coffee' nonsense which you dragged in to a discussion about illegal drugs some time ago?). It's not about Tony Blair (who, as far as I'm aware, and unless you have verifiable information which I don't have, is not a disaffected young Muslim man, is not a drug addict (unless, according to your definitions of 'drug addiction', he's a regular coffee drinker), and has not been to Pakistan to attend a terrorist traing camp), it's about Binyam Mohammed, who (allegedly) is, and has done, all of the above.

I don't "believe that the principle of "innocent until proved guilty" should be jettisoned". I do believe, however, that the rights of totally innocent people going about their normal, legal, everyday business in a civilised world takes absolute priority over the rights of those whose interest is in causing them harm. In that respect, I do believe that it's prudent to treat anyone, irrespective of race or creed, with extreme suspicion if they behave in a way that suggests they are interested in harming totally innocent people going about their normal, legal, everyday business in a civilised world, and that may include preventive detention. However I believe also that any process of this nature should be subject to rigorous legal controls - out of the hands of politicians - unlike the way that the detention of terrorist suspects at Gitmo has been conducted (allegedly).

I'm done and outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM

Not all of the evidence that he had anything to do with terrorism were made under interrogation.

Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs? In fact, there is no doubt that Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to receive training in an al Qaeda camp. Mohamed admitted this to the personal representative assigned to handle his case at Guantánamo. Mohamed did not testify at his hearing at Guantánamo, but his personal representative submitted a memo on his behalf. The memo indicates that Mohamed "admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence." That is a reference to the unclassified summary-of-evidence memo that was prepared by the US government for Mohamed's case.

The items Mohamed admitted include the following:
1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.

2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.

3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.

4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.


At a minimum, therefore, we know that Mohamed has admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative.

Mohamed claims that he was not going to use his skills against America. Mohamed told his personal representative that "he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal." In 2005, Mohamed's lawyer echoed this explanation in an interview with CNN. "He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes," Mohamed's lawyer claimed. "I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp," the lawyer conceded, but he "didn't go to any camp to blow up Americans."

here

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 12:19 PM

The only "evidence" that has been mentioned the Binyam did anything to do with terrorism are "admissions" that he made when being "interrogated".
...............

I think you misread what I wrote, Backwoodsman. As my post indicated, in my comment about "applying that policy to Tony Blair" I was referring to your suggestion of how to deal with people suspected of vile actions - "But, if that means holding someone until all of the facts are established, so be it". I didn't imply that you thought that it was right to torture prisoners. You do however seem to believe that the principle of "innocent until proved guilty" should be jettisoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 04:34 AM

If that's what you believe, GUEST, meself, that being a Muslim automatically makes one a terrorist, well I'd say your so-called 'logic' is very flawed indeed, perverted even.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 05:29 PM

Ah, I have it! Being a suspected person loitering in a foreign place!

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 01:48 PM

'"So - if it's Moslem, brown and tortured, it's pretty certain to be a terrorist?"

'Your words, Meslf, not mine. But it shows how you think.'


Would that be - with at least a modicum of logic and common sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:45 AM

"In June 2001 he went on a trip to Afghanistan. A lot of people have done that in their time." - MGOH

"He insists he only went there to get away from a bad circle of acquaintances in London who had led him into drug addiction and to see for himself how the Taliban's strict Islamic regime worked." (Independent)

I'd like to examine the above statements just to see how incredulous they actually are:

- Was Afghanistan a "hot" destination for tourists in the summer of 2001?? I don't think so; countries in the middle of extremely violent civil wars do not make good holiday destinations.

- So a drug addict decides rather commendably to distance himself from a bad circle of acquaintances in London and goes where?? Afghanistan, oh that's right there are some here who believe that there were no drugs in Afghanistan under Taleban rule. This of course is rubbish, under Taleban rule only those loyal to the Taleban were allowed to grow it. Nowadays of course the Taleban don't give the farmers of Afghanistan any choice in the matter they have to grow it or their families get killed.

This will probably turn out like the Tipton Taleban (Former Gitmo inmates) who all pleaded their innocence and spun the story about going out to Pakistan for a wedding then becoming "aid" workers in Afghanistan. The extremely gullible Brits decided to believe them, only later comes the admission that they did attend an Al-Qaeda Training Camp.

One other thing about BM's capture - he was arrested by the Pakistani Authorities - who on balance have probably a greater working knowledge of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban than any other organisation in the world, they undoubtedly have the best contacts. Under pressure to produce evidence of their commitment to the cause, BM, a small fish, and a foreigner to boot was probably sacrificed for the greater good.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:28 AM

He trained in an Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp; how was this supposed to help his drug addiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:25 AM

"I don't imagine Backwoodsman favours applying that policy to Tony Blair and the other architects of the war in Iraq, or to those suspected of colluding in torture and similar crimes... "

Well......

However, it is still completely unacceptable for it to be tortured into vomiting up the mouse-bones in order to prove it's a cat.

What don't you understand about that, Kevin?

"However, it's still completely unacceptable for them to be tortured into admitting their intentions (or their past offences)."

Or that?

And thank you for proving my point.......

"Ain't that the truth, Jack - me neither - and I'd bet no-one else on here does either if they'd admit to it (although the usual PC Smart-Arses, Loony-Lefties and failed journo suspects might like to pretend they do)."

Good day to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:25 AM

" In June 2001 he went on a trip to Afghanistan. A lot of people have done that in their time"
Is that true? I think few people visited the place in the days of Taleban rule.
Many of our convicted terrorists had made the trip, but they would be the exception that proves my rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM

And if you don't want to be treated like a terrorist suspect, don't behave like one.

So what did he do that constituted behaving like a terrorist? In June 2001 he went on a trip to Afghanistan. A lot of people have done that in their time.

"He insists he only went there to get away from a bad circle of acquaintances in London who had led him into drug addiction and to see for himself how the Taliban's strict Islamic regime worked."(The Independent 20th). That's the kind of thing young men do from time to time.
.......................

"But, if that means holding someone until all of the facts are established, so be it. People who embark on a course of extremism need to be made to understand that they will be called to face responsibility for their own actions, however unpleasant that may be."

I don't imagine Backwoodsman favours applying that policy to Tony Blair and the other architects of the war in Iraq, or to those suspected of colluding in torture and similar crimes...

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 07:15 AM

Are there any lies in the article?
Misleading?In what way is a reader mislead.
Other publications would spin it differently, but BM would have no grounds for a libel case I think.
I do wonder how much longer any paper will be able to use an image of a crusader as its logo.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 07:00 AM

Always thought democracy was over rated...

Newspapers say that they are an important part of democracy, as they hold governments to account. But who holds them to account?

Apparently you can print lies and misleading information just so long as governments are not allowed to do the same.

I am not saying this person is good, bad or indifferent. Without a trial, we have no right to class him as anything other than a victim of human rights abuse. If he is bad, then let a court say so. If he is not bad, The Daily Express may wish to add to any settlement he gets.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 06:23 AM

"I have no idea what the answer is. Not torture though."

Ain't that the truth, Jack - me neither - and I'd bet no-one else on here does either if they'd admit to it (although the usual PC Smart-Arses, Loony-Lefties and failed journo suspects might like to pretend they do).

Enough already. Work (and music) to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Stu
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 06:07 AM

"I strongly suspect BM is a jihadist and as such an enemy who will say anything to discredit western governments and will seek to attack us."

I strongly suspect XX is a IRA volunteer and as such an enemy who will say anything to discredit the British government and will seek to attack us.

I strongly suspect XX is a Boer and as such an enemy who will say anything to discredit The Empire and will seek to attack us.


Internment without trial is open to abuse and has been used in all the cases above to imprison suspects without evidence and intimidate certain communities within the general population. It causes resentment in these communities and help radicalise young people, essentially creating more combatants/terrorists/freedom fighters. It has never worked before, and it''l be counterproductive in the long run as it always has been.

Just an observation - I have no idea what the answer is. Not torture though.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 05:21 AM

I agree you don't have to discuss your beliefs with me, so feel free to ignore this if you wish. But the problem I posed was not whether we would rather "see a thousand would-be terrorists held in preventive detention than than see one innocent individual blown to smithereens" - so would I. It is more whether we would rather see see let's say 100 innocents held in preventative detention in order to detain one actual would-be terrorist who is prepared to blow innocents to smithereens.

It is not an easy question and there are no simple answers, and probably no right answer either.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 05:10 AM

Well, DMcG, I don't actually have to discuss my beliefs with you at all but, since you asked so nicely, my preference is of the 'convict the guilty and release the innocent, having taken all available means, short of torture, to establish that guilt or innocence' kind.

But, if that means holdng someone until all of the facts are established, so be it. People who embark on a course of extremism need to be made to understand that they will be called to face responsibility for their own actions, however unpleasant that may be.

I'd rather see a thousand would-be terrorists held in preventive detention than than see one innocent individual blown to smithereens. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And if you don't want to be treated like a terrorist suspect, don't behave like one. Simple.

And you know what? I'd bet my pension that the majority of British citizens, including Muslims (most of whom, including my neighbours, are good and civilised people), feel very much the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:57 AM

Sorry, I thought my earlier post got lost and repeated much of it.
Richard, I agree about the rule of law but he should be regarded and treated as a suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:54 AM

Basically

I don't support terrorists that are hiding in the UK with the intent to harm British Citizens. They need to be found and kicked out the country as well as all those vile preachers who are stirring the shit and taking the piss out of British Citizens. Unfortunately like all situations like this, innocent people suffer as well.

I also do not support Sharia Law or Schools applying Muslim rules.

I have no problem with peace loving Muslims who want to live and work in this country and abide by our laws etc.

I do not support torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:54 AM

I strongly suspect BM is a jihadist and as such an enemy who will say anything to discredit western governments and will seek to attack us.
I suspect him not because he black or because he is a Muslim. Hundreds of thousands of such live here and I know and work with many.

I suspect him because he has followed the path of other Jihadists from this country to Afghanistan and the border country of Pakistan
Few non jihadists are likely to make that journey.
As I said, not proof but strong evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:41 AM

I started a longer post, but decided to abandon it because it was getting to full of itself. But the gist of it was this:

Any law-enforcement/legal system is flawed in that it will 'convict' a proportion of people who are truly innocient, while 'releasing' a proportion of people who are truly guilty. That is unavoidable. What is controllable to some extent, though, is the balance: you can convict more of the guilty if you are also prepared to convict more of the innocent; or vice versa.

Any I right, Villan and Backwoodsman, in thinking your preference is that mistakes should be of the 'convict the innocent' kind, rather than 'release the guilty'. I take it as read that you want to do all that you can to avoid mistakes in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:41 AM

Well, we've got Binyam Mohammed and it looks as though the US is going to get Gary McKinnon. There's something wrong somewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:11 AM

And Villan's right.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:09 AM

If the four-legged animal has fur, long whiskers, eats mice, and it miaows, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect very strongly indeed that it's a cat.

However, it is still completely unacceptable for it to be tortured into vomiting up the mouse-bones in order to prove it's a cat.

Likewise, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect very strongly indeed that people who (allegedly) behave like terrorists-in-training are, in fact, likely to commit terrorist acts. Not only reasonable, but very prudent.

However, it's still completely unacceptable for them to be tortured into admitting their intentions (or their past offences).

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 04:06 AM

And nothing but nothing justifies these body bombers walking into innocent crowds and blowing up themselves and all around them.
Vile and disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 03:46 AM

There is a common error of logic above, and another of jurisprudence or legal theory.

As to the logic, the flawed postulate is this: "Cats have four legs, this animal has four legs, therefore it is a cat".

As to jurisprudence or legal theory, Keith A's arguemnts run counter th basic "rule of law" theory. The point of this is that all are subject to the rule of law. Our rulers themselves are as subject to the law as we are. No man may assault (or torture) another without legal excuse. Suspicion does not justify assault or detention, and nothing justifies torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 03:30 AM

Does anyone deny that there is such a thing as militant Islam and jihadists.

I am not cocerned because he is black or because he is a Muslim. Hundreds of thousands of such live here and I know and work with many.

I am concerned because I strongly suspect he is a jihadist who wants to attack us.
I suspect that because there are many such and what they have in common is leaving here for Afghanistan or the Pakistan border country and few non jihadists are likely to make that journey.
As I said, not proof but strong evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 03:26 AM

"So - if it's Moslem, brown and tortured, it's pretty certain to be a terrorist?"

Your words, Meslf, not mine. But it shows how you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 03:01 AM

Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber and the Mansons weren't doing it in the name of christianity.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 08:05 PM

"If not, why do we not have an uprising by all Moslem's ... "

I suppose for the same reason we didn't have an uprising by all Christians in the US to expose Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber, or the Manson Family, or ...

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 08:04 PM

"If not, why do we not have an uprising by all Moslem's ... "

I suppose for the same reason we didn't have an uprising by all Christians in the US to expose Timothy McVeigh, or the Unabomber, or the Manson Family, or ...

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:14 PM

Correct me, but aren't all terrorists of Al Queda or Taleban Moslem?

If so, then we have to assume that Moslem's condone terrorists. If not, why do we not have an uprising by all Moslem's in the UK and expose all the terrorists?

Why do we in the UK have to put up with them?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:59 PM

"If it's got feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it's pretty certain to be a duck."

So - if it's Moslem, brown and tortured, it's pretty certain to be a terrorist?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM

I find the idea that there is likely evidence of torture, being actively repressed from the very highest of levels, more disturbing than anything!

So as for it being OK to torture people in 'special' circumstances, for now it's some Muslim enimies.
But, who comes next? Well now, those pinkos are a dangerous bunch (always have been a favourite target in America.) And what about those artists who seem to be saying dodgy stuff (err, ditto). And what about those agitators on Mudcat who create threads like this...? Slipperly slope.

We either support torture as a method of information extraction, or we don't.
We either accept public servants repressing information about the illegal stuff they do, or we don't.

Ethiopians getting fancy flights, are all a big fat red herring to the central and most important issues as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:09 PM

See you there Lizzie

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:57 PM

"Sinks "

Right, that's it then, I'm heading downwards..more fun I reckon.. ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:56 PM

Yup, it's owned by Richard Desmond, Pornographer...


...unless he's sold it.

He also owns OK magazine...and 30 pornographic magazines....

Okkkkkkkkkk

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM

Sinks

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:51 PM

Just a thought, but as some men get promised virgins in heaven, what do women get?

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:50 PM

There's a very different viewpoint, and far more information, on Binyam here...

The Sri Lanka Guardian


Isn't the Daily Express owned by some pornographer chappie?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:47 PM

Richard, I am not out to flame and I won't.

However if you want to adopt the softly softly whilst these people do such terrible things, then be my guest. I just hope that nobody who you know and are close to and love gets caught up in such attrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:45 PM

If it's got feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it's pretty certain to be a duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM

But, Villan, apart from prejudice, you have no reason to believe that Binyan Mohammed is such a person.

And are the lies of army recruiters, who promise glory, much the less than those who promise virgins in heaven?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:21 PM

However the ba**ard* that get people to walk into crowds with bombs strapped to them and willfully blow everybody up around them are to be condoned then! Yes even using special needs people to do it. Cowardly b*s*rds

>>You can be absolutely certain that whatever was done to Binyam Mohammed during those seven long years, none of those responsible will suffer in any way for it. <<

At least the people who you seek to be punished did not strap bombs to gullible poeple and send them into a crowd to be blown up.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, until those gits stop doing such atrocoties, then as far as I am concerned, they can go to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 01:05 PM

One difference is that the allegations that he was a terrorist now appear to have been abandoned by the US government, which also seems to have given up denying the allegations of torture.

And there is no question whatsoever that he was held prisoner for seven years without being brought to trial.

There's no need to get all defensive. You can be absolutely certain that whatever was done to Binyam Mohammed during those seven long years, none of those responsible will suffer in any way for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:55 PM

Well Richard, if the Terrorist Muslims stopped their attrocious ways of committing their bombings etc, then they might get some sympathy.

Until then NFW

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:20 PM

The English courts have already demonstrated that the US is hiding things (the "redacted" material) and that the UK is being forced by the USA to hide things too.

Binyam Mohammed has already been unlawfully seized transported and confined by the USA, and anyone who claims that Guantanamo detainees were not tortured needs his head examining.

The smear job (that I am ashamed to see Englishmen falling for above) is that because Mohammed came from Ethiopia, is non-white, and is a Muslim, and was accused by the USA, he is bound to be a terrorist and a scrounger.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Question raised, and probably upper-most in peoples minds, including his own, is should he be allowed to stay in the UK.

- He is not a UK citizen, he is Ethiopian
- His residents permit has expired
- His life is not in danger back home in Ethiopia

He has very little grounds for asylum compared to others

He has been given temporary permission to stay in the UK while his legal team you are paying all his living expenses prepare all their law suits. Well they can do all that with this gentleman sent home to Ethiopia.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM

It always amazes me how people who have come over to this country with apparently nothing can afford to travel to places like Afghanistan and be there for extended periods of time when they are not working. If he had stayed in this country, where he clearly wants to be, none of this would have happened to him.

I would need evidence of torture and collusion just as I would need evidence of his guilt before I condemned anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:06 AM

This private jet business is, I suspect, being deliberately misleading. Once they had decided to get him back in principle, the practicalities of the transport need to be thought through. I don't know what the costs of the alternatives are - eg some military jet perhaps - and maybe they wanted or were required to have a level of security which was not compatable with taking him using scheduled planes with possible interchanges and other countries to worry about. Whatever the calculation was, I doubt very much whether anyone said "and we need the plane to be luxurious".

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:06 AM

BRITISH troops in Afghanistan are being killed by Muslim fanatics from the UK who have joined forces with the Taliban.

In the papers today

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:30 AM

He had no connections with Afghanistan, yet he left Britain for that country.
Not proof of being a Taleban fighter, but certainly giving him a strong case to answer.
His innocent explanation stretches credulity beyond limits.
His only claim on Britain is that he stayed here for a while.
Osamam bin Laden was also a resident here. Should we send a private jet for him too?

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:29 AM

*suspected

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:24 AM

what happened to the terrorist (who is milking our stupid generosity and probably planning the next way he can get involved in terrorism).

(Wearily) ALLEGED terrorist. No trial, no conviction. Saying 'he is probably planning ... terrorism' may be slander in the circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:11 AM

>>But to cite one travesty of justice against this lady as a way of justifying another another one against this man doesn't really make a lot of sense. <<

I used it, becuase what happened to this lady concerns me more than what happened to the terrorist (who is milking our stupid generosity and probably planning the next way he can get involved in terrorism).

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 01:21 AM

Kevin, why is it that you fail to state that the torture was alleged, why is it that you fail to mention that collusion on the part of the British authorities is also only alleged - once more your bias comes into play. I prefer keeping an open mind about it until such time as more information becomes available.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Gurney
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:26 AM

'Innocent until proven guilty' also applies to governments and government organisations such as MI5.

So, there was this Ethiopian, who had had British residency but which had expired, Mohammed by name, who was in Afghanistan fighting (He says) against anti-Taliban forces (Who would they be, now?) and Pakistan and he was arrested by the Pakistanis who suspected him of being a terrorist. He claims to have been tortured by various groups, none of them British.

Have I understood this right?

This is somehow the fault of the British Government?
As I see it, HE is responsible for his behaviour, in Britain and in Afghanistan, and if his actions have consequences, then he should suffer them.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:02 PM

ALLEGED torture. We only have his word on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:40 PM

...he was alleged... Never charged, never trued, never found guilty.

Just tortured, and imprisoned for seven years, with the collusion of the British authorities.

"British justice" is indeed a disgrace at times. In fact it's sometimes an oxymoron. But to cite one travesty of justice against this lady as a way of justifying another another one against this man doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:26 PM

And then you see articles like this and you wonder where we are heading in this country.

BRITISH justice was branded a disgrace last night after a respected village councillor was prosecuted for standing up to the yobs who plague our streets.

Retired postmistress Alma Harding was landed with a criminal record for clipping the foul-mouthed thug round the head with her rolled-up committee papers.

She has also been handed a £3,000 legal bill for tackling the vandal and his friends who shouted a stream of four-letter abuse at her.

The 63-year-old choir member, pictured above, confronted the 13-year-old as he was playing football near prize-winning flowerbeds on the village green.

But after she asked him politely to move to the nearby playing fields, the teenager snarled back, calling her a "f****** fat b******".

Ann Widdecombe said the case should have been thrown out

Astonishingly, because the frightened "little old lady" stood her ground she was the one who was hauled before the courts and convicted of battery because she had technically struck the youngster.

Mrs Harding was offered a caution which would have kept the case out of court but would have been recorded as a criminal conviction on her impeccable past.

It made my blood boil to be offered this caution. I would rather go to prison. It's a point of principle

She said she would rather go to jail than accept a caution which would be a "stain on her character".

She added: "It made my blood boil to be offered this caution. I would rather go to prison. It's a point of principle."

Mrs Harding sobbed in the dock during the two-day case and said: "It is a black day in the community when the police find it fit to persecute a little old lady for defending herself and her property as well as public and church property from the vandalism of youths in the village, by hitting one with a few pieces of rolled up paper."

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM

Teribus, I think you have bullet pointed that very well.

Why don't we roll the carpet out for him. Ooops sorry we already have.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM

Reading through the article linked to by Richard Bridge you get the following factual information:

•        A FORMER Al Qaeda suspect was flown back to Britain on a luxury jet yesterday – at Government expense.

•        Ethiopian Mohamed's return to his adopted country cost an amazing £120,000.

•        Last night, he was preparing to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK and receive a possible £21,600-a-year in benefits and allowances.

•        That's around £5,000 more than earned by a frontline British soldier risking his life to fight Mohamed's alleged Taliban associates in Afghanistan.

•        The former detainee, a failed asylum seeker who was once granted British resident status, may also try to sue the British Government for hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages.

•        Mohamed, who arrived in Britain in 1994, was given leave to remain for four years in 2000. In June 2001, he travelled to Afghanistan where he was alleged to have fought against anti-Taliban forces. He was arrested at Karachi, Pakistan, in April 2002 as he went to board a flight back to the UK.

•        Mohamed, who has a flat in North Kensington, London

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM

...are you able to prove that he is not a terror suspect? Of course he was a terror suspect - the point is, he hasn't been found guilty of any kind of terrorist activity.

"Innocent until proved guilty" is the bottom line in any society with aspirations to be regarded as anything other than a legal pariah.
..................................

"As to the torture, then that is not acceptable.

Going out on a limb there, I see, Villan.
........................

"I have to be as much in the dark about this person as most people in this country." A lot more so, I would suggest, than anybody who has read a reputable paper in recent weeks.

For example here's a list of stories where Binyam Mohammed gets a mention in The Daily Telegraph - not a notably liberal or left-wing publication.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rasener
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:22 PM

You are all going on about this, but are you able to prove that he is not a terror suspect?

Why are we footing his bill and further why is he back in this country?

As to the torture, then that is not acceptable.

However, we are facing a situation where we probably have many people in the UK who hate us and are plotting future cowardly bomb blasts.

Can anybody outline to me without flaming, the true background to all of this. Do you really know the facts!!!!!

I have to be as much in the dark about this person as most people in this country. So please make your case in a constructive and positive way, so us poor morsals can understand why we have him back in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:43 AM

Hey it's not all bad! They've managed to include around four sentences, which appear to be factual!!:

"Alleged torture victim Binyam Mohamed, 30, [spent] more than six years as a US prisoner being held in Guantanamo Bay. [...]

Mohamed's return came after a storm of allegations that British intelligence officials knew he was being tortured after he was originally held in Pakistan in September 2002. [...]

Earlier this month, it emerged that President Obama threatened to cut off the flow of intelligence to Britain if information about the alleged torture was made public.

Two High Court judges ruled that the danger to national security was so severe that claims about what allegedly happened to him in American-run jails should remain secret. [...]"

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:16 AM

Despicable, scandalous, a disgrace. Makes one proud to be British, don't it ?


I am no supporter of censorship, but this should never have been published.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:09 AM

That's far too many British (and American) newspapers for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:43 AM

Truly vile. words fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM

Trouble is, they're doing a BNP job on the story. They are taking a bit of truth, and embroidering it to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Subject: BS: Binyam Mohammed - the VILE Daily Express
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:48 AM

Vile bigoted newspaper reportage