View Full Version : extraordinary rendition
webmannie
13-Sep-05, 18:56
Did anybody read the claim that the CIA have used Wick Airport (amongst others) to carry out 'Extraordinary rendition'
Right or Wrong?
note:
Extraordinary rendition
The US policy of taking moving suspects from one country to another without any court hearing or extradition process.
Human rights campaigners insist that these operations violate international law. Washington insists they do not. Nevertheless, the United Nations is seeking to examine Britain's role in the policy, as part of a wider inquiry into ways in which counter-terrorism operations around the world may breach basic human rights.
concerned resident
13-Sep-05, 20:25
What do you expect from a Labour Government, that could not even tell the Scottish people, the truth about scottish oil.
:confused You will need to expand on that a wee bit........thought I had slipped back in time and was watching The Cheviot, The Stag and The Black, Black Oil :lol:
concerned resident
13-Sep-05, 22:30
Scotsboy, bringing you up to date. From BBC Scotland Web Page.
A secret Whitehall dossier written 30 years ago has revealed that Labour ministers were concerned about the case for Scottish independence.
The information was kept confidential at the time to keep Nationalism at bay.
The paper was obtained by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.
Written by a leading government economist in 1974, it sets out how oil would have given Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe.
The report by Professor Gavin Mc Crone also stated that Scotland would have had "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses
Scotsboy, bringing you up to date. From BBC Scotland Web Page.
A secret Whitehall dossier written 30 years ago has revealed that Labour ministers were concerned about the case for Scottish independence.
The information was kept confidential at the time to keep Nationalism at bay.
The paper was obtained by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.
Written by a leading government economist in 1974, it sets out how oil would have given Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe.
The report by Professor Gavin Mc Crone also stated that Scotland would have had "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses
IMHO if it was up to English voters, Scotland would have got Independence years ago. Why pump English cash into a bottomless pit?
Arnt we all British and have been since 1603 or thereabouts? :roll:
As for giving terrorist suspects the heave ho from Wick Airport without recognising their human rights. Why not? Its about time Britain fought back against the scourge of reality inducing fantasy and let these potentially dangerous people know that theres no hiding place amongst the freedom loving British people. If the price of that freedom is for someone to be bundled outta Britain via Wick, bring it on.
Mind you, knowing the British mentality for fair play I wouldnt be surprised if the potential terrorist didnt spend his last night in Britian in Auckergill Tower.
Can't get too excited about it actually - the Scotlands oil thing......actually the use of Wick Airport for shipping terrorists through either. Actually it kind of ties in with our current Chancellors view that the way to reduce current "high" petrol prices is for OPEC to increase production....now I am no economist, but what we have is a finite resource, things are only going to get worse, as demand is ever increasing. I would actually argue that the UK price is about correct IF the taxation was put to proper use looking for alternative energy sources and to ameliorate the damage caused by the emissions from cars burning fossil fuels. Costs in other countries which do not have such a high tax burden on fuel are significnatly more (percentage wise) than in the UK.
Human rights campaigners insist that these operations violate international law. Washington insists they do not. Nevertheless, the United Nations is seeking to examine Britain's role in the policy, as part of a wider inquiry into ways in which counter-terrorism operations around the world may breach basic human rights.
America has never been too concerned about human rights, I'd say that compared to locking people up without trial for years on end taking them out of the country in secret is a minor breach of human rights.
A far greater breach of human rights is the Pentagons proposal to change the rules of engagement to allow the preemtive use of nuclear weapons. Lookout Iran, no one is going to be able to say "look they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction after all" there, the evidence will all be gone.
George Brims
15-Sep-05, 22:59
Rheghead wrote:
MHO if it was up to English voters, Scotland would have got Independence years ago. Why pump English cash into a bottomless pit?
Wrong way round Rheghead. The net flow of taxes to Westminster vs government spending in Scotland has historically been such that Scotland has been a bottomless WELL. This was the case even before oil started flowing from the North Sea. On Robin Day's debate program many years ago the Chancellor of the day (I forget who) stated that once the oil was gone Britain would have to rely on its traditional sources of revenue again - Harris Tweed and Scotch whisky! The SNP mannie from the Outer Hebrides was not well pleased.
As for the idea that we should relax our standards of conduct because we're fighting a sneaky enemy, I would quote you American founding father Ben Franklin - "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Wrong on both counts George, if Scotland ceded from the Union, we wouldn't get a drop of oil. The oil is British not Scottish.
As for the idea that we should relax our standards of conduct because we're fighting a sneaky enemy, I would quote you American founding father Ben Franklin - "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
I wonder did Benjamin Franklin have some romantic notion that humanities inhumanity was something that could be erased by pretending that all men are free.
I dont think Benjamin Franklin in his wildest dreams could have imagined the type of world we live in today.
We live in a very dangerous world! I realise for me I have lived in comparitive safety in Great Britain whilst in other parts of the world peoples lives were in danger on a daily basis. Its no different today. Terrorism, whether its state terrorism or any other terrorism seems to be here to stay for a while. Sneaky enemies created havoc in London on my birthday. I was very nearly in London on that day.
The government are trying to introduce a new law where terrorist suspects can be detained for 3 months without charge instead of 2 weeks at the moment. The Home Secetary said it was because electronic data takes longer to be analysed so the police need more time. The Tories are not happy about it. I say lock them up for as long as it takes. If their actions are such that the security services cannot gaurentee public safety if they are released, it would be madness to release them. Even if it means a lowering of Benjamin Franklins standards.
Alternatively, up to Wick with the CIA and... good luck chaps.
champagnebaby
16-Sep-05, 01:01
Did anybody read the claim that the CIA have used Wick Airport (amongst others) to carry out 'Extraordinary rendition'
Right or Wrong?
note:
Extraordinary rendition
The US policy of taking moving suspects from one country to another without any court hearing or extradition process.
Human rights campaigners insist that these operations violate international law. Washington insists they do not. Nevertheless, the United Nations is seeking to examine Britain's role in the policy, as part of a wider inquiry into ways in which counter-terrorism operations around the world may breach basic human rights.
Yes i read that too and i think it's right. So what if they used Wick airport? who cares? I agree that terrorist suspects should be held for up to 3 months. If the police have good reason to believe that someone is involved in terrorist activities then arrest them straight away and keep them holed up until they've found evidence.
In the Jean Charles de Menezes case i think the police were quite right to shoot him if their version of events are to be believed. I'm still suspicious of that though especially how there was no cctv footage of the shooting :eek: That office had to think on his feet - let the man get on the train and risk killing loads of people or take him out? 5 shots in the head is a bit much though!
If someone poses such a thread then they should be extradited back to where they come from after all how many british suicide bombers have there been in the past 10 years or so? And the terrorist hit seem to be so much worse than years ago, just look at 9/11.
Many policing experts claim the threat posed by suicide bombers today is so much more serious than the danger from the Provisional IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that a shoot-to-kill policy is obligatory.
Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm
I'm in total agreement with Gleeber.
George Brims
16-Sep-05, 01:07
Rheghead wrote:
Wrong on both counts George, if Scotland ceded from the Union, we wouldn't get a drop of oil. The oil is British not Scottish.
I specifically stated that the net flow of money was north to south INDEPENDENT of what would happen to the oil in the event of seccession (which I haven't advocated by the way).
George Brims
16-Sep-05, 01:14
Gleeber wrote:
I dont think Benjamin Franklin in his wildest dreams could have imagined the type of world we live in today. We live in a very dangerous world!
Do you think Ben Franklin didn't live in a dangerous world? After all he said that shortly after a wee thing called the War of Independence. The point is that we have courts of law to deal with terrorism just like every other criime. As soon as we start deciding that we will treat terrorist suspects in some different way we have declared the defeat of freedom.
Do you think Ben Franklin didn't live in a dangerous world? After all he said that shortly after a wee thing called the War of Independence. The point is that we have courts of law to deal with terrorism just like every other criime. As soon as we start deciding that we will treat terrorist suspects in some different way we have declared the defeat of freedom.
I didnt suggest benjamin Franklin lived in a less dangerous world. What I did suggest was that Benjamins Franklins romantic notion of freedom (and yours it seems) is a danger in our present dangerous world.
That so-called freedom itself is once again the prize our governments are trying to maintain. Just like in WW11 a group of idealistic nutters are not happy about Western freedom.
Could Benjamin Franklin have imagined a young British muslim so hate filled by our ideas of freedom that he will blow himself to bits with a n electrically detonated explosive in the depths of the London underground systym and that the explosion would have world wide repurcussions within minutes of its detonation? I doubt it.
Theres not been many wars as horrific as the American War of Independance. At least these guys knew who they were fighting and usually where they were fighting. The rules are different with so-called Islamic terrorism. The world is different. The romantic notion that all men are free is just that. A romantic notion.
As for the idea that we should relax our standards of conduct because we're fighting a sneaky enemy, I would quote you American founding father Ben Franklin - "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Relax our standards? I say we should tighten up our standards if we are to maintain our way of life against an enemy who does not respect it.
The whole crux of Franklins quote must be taken into context in the modern era, what do we mean by 'essential liberty'.
Is it really an essential liberty that we can go around inciting hatred?
I don't think it is, so I am still entitled to security and liberty, No?
May I remind you of another quote by Franklin
The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but it is still nonsense.
Just like in WW11 a group of idealistic nutters are not happy about Western freedom.
Yes, just like in WWII a group of idealistic nutters are not happy about Western freedom.
It might be a good idea to look and see how those nutters in WWII got away with it for so long.
They first got themselves into power in Germany by winning a free democratic election and put their own supporters into every position of power in the country.
Then on Feb 27th 1933 a group of storm troopers under orders from Goering and one Communist nutter burnt down the Reichstag building. Hitler then had the excuse he needed to bring in a load of oppressive laws to combat Comminist terrorism, shoot to kill, arrest without trial. Hitler quickly started rounding up anyone he considered a threat to his ideals and throwing them into prison where they were tortured and sometimes killed.
He then set about using the might of the German army to invade other countries and Nazify them.
It all sounds mighty familiar to me but it aint the Muslims it's reminding me of.
George Brims
16-Sep-05, 18:20
Rheghead wrote:
Relax our standards? I say we should tighten up our standards if we are to maintain our way of life against an enemy who does not respect it.
The whole crux of Franklins quote must be taken into context in the modern era, what do we mean by 'essential liberty'.
Is it really an essential liberty that we can go around inciting hatred?
I don't think it is, so I am still entitled to security and liberty, No?
Now Rheghead you have changed the subject here. We were discussing whether it's a good idea to have extra-legal treatment for terrorism suspects. My view is that we're going down a dangerous road if we start saying it's OK to suspend the legal procedures that apply to all other forms of crime. Maintaining our standards of jurisprudence IS maintaining our way of life.
As for the whole question of hate-inciting speech, I think many countries, the US and UK included, have been far too liberal in the application of the principles of free speech. A lot of the people making these speeches should simply have been deported long ago. Whether that would do any good in preventing terrorism is an unanswerable question. There's unfortunately plenty of hate going around.
Gleeber wrote:
ust like in WW11 a group of idealistic nutters are not happy about Western freedom.
Make no mistake Gleeber it's not our freedom they hate. It's us. Their mentality is classic "if you're not with us you're against us".
As for the whole question of hate-inciting speech, I think many countries, the US and UK included, have been far too liberal in the application of the principles of free speech. A lot of the people making these speeches should simply have been deported long ago. Whether that would do any good in preventing terrorism is an unanswerable question. There's unfortunately plenty of hate going around.
Gleeber wrote:
ust like in WW11 a group of idealistic nutters are not happy about Western freedom.
Make no mistake Gleeber it's not our freedom they hate. It's us. Their mentality is classic "if you're not with us you're against us".
Theres not such a big difference between our thoughts than I first imagined George. Mind you, Im struggling to seperate "our freedom" from "us". Im sure we all have a bit of "if your not with us your against us" Where else do our every day prejudices come from?
Ultimately these people must have have a disrespect for themselves. How else could young men and sometimes women willingly blow themselves to smithereens?
surely taking them to Wick is punishment enough?
surely taking them to Wick is punishment enough?
Perhaps when they land,they could add a few passengers too...
I am sure there are some folk in Wick that could use some extraordinary rendition...
peter macdonald
17-Sep-05, 23:19
Rheghead wrote
Wrong on both counts George, if Scotland ceded from the Union, we wouldn't get a drop of oil. The oil is British not Scottish.
Where did you get this from ?? It would depend on the break up of the union
When Czechoslovakia became the Czech Rep. and Slovakia the assets of the origial entity were devided according to what was agreeable to both sides based on geography and ownership .This split was so smooth it bacame known as the velvet revolution and it appears both countries are progressing in their own ways at their own speed. I beleive the the same happened when Norway and Sweden split in 1905. You have to remember Rheghead that the bond between Scotland and England is a Union in keeping with the examples above .What would happen if the union was to be desolved is a question for another part of the forum
Make no mistake Gleeber it's not our freedom they hate. It's us. Their mentality is classic "if you're not with us you're against us".
Anyone listening to the news yesterday morning will have heard that the Londodn bombers had a trial run two weeks before the bombings. This can mean two things, either someone on the police force was working late Monday night and suddenly realised it or that the police have known about it for some time and the Home Office released the information Monday night so that Tuesday morning peoples minds would be on the London bombings when they heard about the two soldiers shooting an Iraqi policeman.
If you look at foreign newspapers you will see reports coming from Iraq, that the two soldiers were driving a car packed with explosives and had a remote detonator, one source of this information was an Iraqi MP. Why would two British soldiers, disguised as Arabs, be driving a car packed with explosives and carrying a remote detonator? Work that one out and you'll know why they hate us.
What's your point Fred? That the London bombers were SAS :lol:
The events in Basra where the two British soldiers were “detained” by the Iraqi “police” and then handed to a militia group reminded me of the events of 1988, after the SAS took out some poor innocent Irish holiday makers (sic) in Gibraltar. The funerals of these “tourists” at Milltown cemetery were interrupted by a Loyalist gunman, Michael Stone who managed to kill a few more before being apprehended by a pursuing mob and then rescued by the security forces. A few days later the victims of Stone’s attack were being buried, and two undercover British soldiers were apprehended by a mob in West Belfast and murdered in front of security forces personnel who filmed everything. Allegedly the security forces were told to sacrifice the men rather than go in for them. Those who murdered the soldiers are on film and are known, nobody was ever charged for those murders (as far as I am aware).
With the two SAS guys captured in Iraq, I am sure the British military were only too aware of the potential danger that lay in store for them, that is why the action was taken. I think they were correct to take that action.
For the record I was against the war in Iraq, I had never believed the WMD nonsense after listening and reading Scott Ritter, who had first hand experience of the situation. The whole thing is a complete mess, and I am undecided about the worth of keeping forces in Iraq – I think civil war is inevitable now as all the different factions seem to be rallying.
By the way Fred, who are “THEY” the terrorists, the insurgents, ordinary Iraqis or Muslims?
The events in Basra where the two British soldiers were “detained” by the Iraqi “police” and then handed to a militia group reminded me of the events of 1988, after the SAS took out some poor innocent Irish holiday makers (sic) in Gibraltar.
There are parallels with Northern Ireland, that wasn't one of them but there are some. In Northern Ireland there was a branch of the SAS called the Military Reconnaissance Force which would drive round in civilian cars shooting people with IRA weapons, plant bombs to be blamed on the IRA, that sort of thing.
You seem to have completely ignored what happened before the two soldiers were arrested. Some sources say they had a car packed with explosives, all sources say they opened fire on the Iraqi police. What if these British soldiers dressed as Arabs had got away? Would the British government have informed the public that it was they who had killed an Iraqi policeman or would they have blamed it on whatever Islamic faction they wished to discredit at the time?
But the biggest issue here is how can the British claim to be fighting terrorism when we are terrorists ourselves. This incident proves Bush and Blairs "War on Terror" to be just one more lie in a long chain of lies.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering
I think you mean the Force Research Unit. They were alleged to have links with Loyalist terror groups, but have not heard or seen anywhere that they actually carried out attacks themselves. They were of course involved in a "dirty war" with Irish Republicans, those same people who think that taking out military and political target is justified........if you fly with the crows, you may get shot with them.
I think you mean the Force Research Unit. They were alleged to have links with Loyalist terror groups, but have not heard or seen anywhere that they actually carried out attacks themselves. They were of course involved in a "dirty war" with Irish Republicans, those same people who think that taking out military and political target is justified........if you fly with the crows, you may get shot with them.
So there is no difference between those who support the Muslim insurgents and those who support the British. Both are the same, apart from one being an army of occupation that is.
Those who look on in horror and disgust at people who justify the taking of innocent lives in the London bombings do the exact same thing when they justify the British occupation of Iraq. There is no difference, the London bombers take innocent lives to try and free Iraq from British occupation and stand up and say what they have done and why. The British take innocent lives and throw the blame on someone else, to stir up trouble and give the Americans an excuse to make the inhabitants of another Sunni town refugees, to prevent them voting on the 25th of October, under the guise of getting the insurgents who were causing the trouble.
I think the difference is in the aims. The stated aims (whether you believe them or not) of the coalition is to bring democracy to Iraq. The aims of those who bombed in London and elsewhere are to further the aims of radical Islam.
You still have not answered who “they” are.
Would also like some references for the claims made relating to the force research unit ( or the Military Reconnaissance Force as you stated).
I think the difference is in the aims. The stated aims (whether you believe them or not) of the coalition is to bring democracy to Iraq. The aims of those who bombed in London and elsewhere are to further the aims of radical Islam.
Democracy? Driving Sunni Muslims into the desert to prevent them voting against a constitution which would give the Shia the breast, the Kurd the leg and the Sunni the parsons nose is democracy?
Or do you mean the sort of democracy where the rich who control the media get to decide which member of a family of Nazi supporters gets to be President next?
You still have not answered who “they” are.
Why the "they" referred to in the message I was replying to of course, I would have thought that was obvious.
Would also like some references for the claims made relating to the force research unit ( or the Military Reconnaissance Force as you stated).
Might I suggest Google as an excelent search engine, there were a whole heap of references listed when I looked.
Once again you fail to answer any questions Fred.
The "THEY" in your response is not obviopus which is why I sought clarification, ibviously you dont want to answer.
I know a bit about the FRU and have never seen any claims like those you made - never made them up did you?
I find your claim that the coalition favours the Shia interesting – do you think that would be in the best interests? I find that strange with Americas “problems” with Iran, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think it would be of benefit. The fact that they have a majority of the population would have nothing to do with it of course.
Don’t understand your comments about the Press and the Nazi supporters. Strange analogy though as I always thought it claimed that the press was Jewish dominated and controlled.
The funny thing Fred, for all your support of those poor people reacting against the vicious and malicious west , you are just an infadel like the rest of us.
Once again you fail to answer any questions Fred.
The "THEY" in your response is not obviopus which is why I sought clarification, ibviously you dont want to answer.
I know a bit about the FRU and have never seen any claims like those you made - never made them up did you?
Actually I never said anything about the FRU, you are the one who said they had links to Loyalist terror groups and were involved in a dirty war against the IRA.
I find your claim that the coalition favours the Shia interesting – do you think that would be in the best interests? I find that strange with Americas “problems” with Iran, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think it would be of benefit. The fact that they have a majority of the population would have nothing to do with it of course.
Actually I didn't claim that the coalition favours the Shia, the Americans need a constitution, any constitution, if the Sunni vote this one out it sets the process back months if not years.
Don’t understand your comments about the Press and the Nazi supporters. Strange analogy though as I always thought it claimed that the press was Jewish dominated and controlled.
Prescot Bush, George Bush's grandfather, was one of Hitlers most powerful financial supporters before the war and during the war. He and George Herbert Walker, George Bush's great grandfather set up the Union Banking Corporation which was nothing more than a money laundering front for Nazi operations in America. They raised money for Hitler by selling German bonds and supplied him with raw materials including tetraethyl lead so his bombers could carry more bombs to drop on innocent British civillians. This was not only before the war, not only after Britain entered the war but he continued to supply Germany even after America entered the war. After the war it was he who arranged the transfer of German funds to South America.
And before you accuse me of making it up just do a google search for "bush-family-history hitler" and you will see it's all well doccumented, the Union Banking Corporation was investigated, Prescot Bush had his assets siezed and he was charged with trading with the enemy.
The funny thing Fred, for all your support of those poor people reacting against the vicious and malicious west , you are just an infadel like the rest of us.
I just see things as they are not how I want them to be or how they tell me they are.
There is no difference whatsoever between our invasion if Iraq and Hitlers invasion of Poland.
OK Fred, here is your quote:
In Northern Ireland there was a branch of the SAS called the Military Reconnaissance Force which would drive round in civilian cars shooting people with IRA weapons, plant bombs to be blamed on the IRA, that sort of thing.
Can you provide references for these claims.
Thanks for the clarification on the Sunni vote, have not heard or read anything about claims they were stopped from voting.
Had not heard anyhting about the Bush/Nazi link, and to be honest I am not that interested in it, far more interested in the fact that the current Pope was one of the Hiltler Youth.
OK Fred, here is your quote:
In Northern Ireland there was a branch of the SAS called the Military Reconnaissance Force which would drive round in civilian cars shooting people with IRA weapons, plant bombs to be blamed on the IRA, that sort of thing.
Can you provide references for these claims.
There you go, no mention of any FRU at all.
I did suggest you did a google search where you would find plenty of references but if you can't be bothered try http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/morgan.htm for starters.
Thanks for the clarification on the Sunni vote, have not heard or read anything about claims they were stopped from voting.
You didn't hear about the attack on Tel Afar last week then or Ramadi yesterday.
Had not heard anyhting about the Bush/Nazi link, and to be honest I am not that interested in it, far more interested in the fact that the current Pope was one of the Hiltler Youth.
Why would you worry about the Pope? Just having Nazi links isn't so bad, it's when someone has Nazi links and starts invading other countries, passing laws to wipe out basic human rights our forefathers faught long and hard for and building concentration camps you should be worried.
Like the Childrens Prisons that Sadam used to run :roll:
Like the Childrens Prisons that Sadam used to run :roll:
Oh I see, one Muslim held children in prison so that gives us the right to round up every Muslim in the world we don't like and put them in cages for years on end without trial.
Don't suppose it's entered your head that there probably isn't a detainee at Guantanamo Bay that wouldn't have shot Saddam on sight given half a chance. No, you'd rather put Saddams sins on the shoulders of every Muslim in the world to justify our crimes against them.
Fred, I work and live in a Muslim country. I have many muslim friends. I have not said or suggested that the war in Iraq is justified - but you dont listen (or read),you dont try to see things from any other persepctive from any other than your own.
You have your opinion (which very few share) and I have mine.
Fred, I work and live in a Muslim country. I have many muslim friends. I have not said or suggested that the war in Iraq is justified - but you dont listen (or read),you dont try to see things from any other persepctive from any other than your own.
You have your opinion (which very few share) and I have mine.
That's my point, I have an opinion which very few share.
Let's face it if those were white American Christians chained and caged at Guantanamo Bay Bush would have been dragged out and lynched on the White House lawn before now. Not only has he done it and got away with it he has done it and won (sort of) an election.
If that isn't racism on the scale of Nazi Germany what the hell is it?
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a rade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
If that isn't racism on the scale of Nazi Germany what the hell is it?
Are you for real?
Since the Bush administration has not killed 6 million Jews then I cannot agree with you.
Condoleeza Rice?, Colin Powell? :roll:
If that isn't racism on the scale of Nazi Germany what the hell is it?
Are you for real?
Since the Bush administration has not killed 6 million Jews then I cannot agree with you.
Condoleeza Rice?, Colin Powell? :roll:
How do you know what America hasn't done? If you'd told a German citizen during the war that their government was murdering large numbers of people, not just Jews, do you think they would have believed you? Some still don't believe it despite concrete evidence.
You don't know what is happening or what will happen in the future, all we know is that people are being put in concentration camps in secret, they are being held indefinitely without right to legal representation or trial. If their friends and families even tell anyone they have been taken they can be taken and held indefinitely without legal representation or trial themselves. All we know about what happens in these places is some photos taken at Abu Ghraib (you saw the photos, which is the Nazi the one on all fours naked or the one holding the dog lead) and reports from American servicemen, who dare not reveal their identities, that beatings with pickaxe handles is the normal practice in the American prisons in Iraq.
Yes I am real, what did the population of Germany know about the concentration camps during the war? All they knew is what we know, the basic constitutional rights which protect against such atrocities had been removed.
Remember the American ruling classes supported Hitlers eugenics program and his plans to create the master race which led to the holocaust. Remember they managed to get
forced steralization legalized in 18 states. Remember there are already over 800 prison camps throughout North America already built, already staffed, already guarded and all empty. Remember under the Rex 84 program these camps were to be administered by FEMA and Bush considered being head of an arab horse breeding asociation qualifications enough for being head of FEMA.
Yes I am real, like I said if those were white American Christians at Guantanamo Bay, if those were photos of white American Christians being abused at Abu Ghraib, if it was white American Christians being chained to the ceiling and beaten to death it would be an entirely different story so if that isn't racism, and racism on a national scale, then what the hell is it?
How do you know what America hasn't done? If you'd told a German citizen during the war that their government was murdering large numbers of people, not just Jews, do you think they would have believed you? Some still don't believe it despite concrete evidence.
Oh I get it
You are accusing the Americans of pulling in any Ali, Ahmed and Osama on no proof just speculation yet you yerself have no proof only speculation that the Bush administration is committing genocide. What logic is that?
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
Oh I get it
You are accusing the Americans of pulling in any Ali, Ahmed and Osama on no proof just speculation yet you yerself have no proof only speculation that the Bush administration is committing genocide. What logic is that?
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
I haven't abducted any Americans and held them without trial.
Even German war criminals got a fair trial at Nuremberg with qualified jurors but if you're black and Muslim you're not even entitled to that.
That's racism on a national scale.
I haven't abducted any Americans and held them without trial.
That's because to bring someone to trial then you need plausible evidence.
Even German war criminals got a fair trial at Nuremberg with qualified jurors but if you're black and Muslim you're not even entitled to that.
What if your white and muslim?
Did OJ Simpson get a fair triall??
But I take your point, I think everyone agrees that the situation at Guantanamo is wrong.
Even German war criminals got a fair trial at Nuremberg with qualified jurors but if you're black and Muslim you're not even entitled to that.
What if your white and muslim?
Did OJ Simpson get a fair triall??
But I take your point, I think everyone agrees that the situation at Guantanamo is wrong.
I think everyone agrees that war is wrong but as Goering said it's the leaders who decide the policy then manipulate the people into going along and when you get a sadistic mad man in a position of power millions will die whether it's thirties Germany or present day America.
If America were to stop building permanent bases in Iraq, remove its permanent bases from Saudi and ask the United Nations to police Iraq till they can police themselves do you think there might be a possibility of finding a way out of this God awful mess we've gotten into?
Here we go again, Fred.
Do you honestly believe that the US military policy is to drive Sunnis into the desert so they can't vote? Apart from it playing into the hands of Al-Zaqarwi, it would be logistically unachievable, politically suicidal and militarily illogical. I'd be interested to know your source for such a statement.
The UN policing Iraq? Well correct me if I'm wrong, but the UN pulled out of Iraq at the end of 2003 because it was too dangerous and have only had a skeleton staff in Baghdad ever since. They could not, and would not, come back in to maintain order in the country.
God knows, the Americans are guilty of so many mistakes out here, but the phrase 'cloud-cuckoo land' springs to mind with this theory of yours! And before you say it again, no I'm not 'in denial' just because I've spent the last 2 years working in Iraq with Iraqis. It's called having the facts to hand, not a second-hand opinion.
remove its permanent bases from Saudi
These went 2 years ago.
Bases in Bahrain and Qatar - where they are most welcome Fred.
hey fred,
I see that the Shiites have moved the goalposts in the Sunni majority provinces to make it harder for them to vote against the constitution and undermine the process...
Sunni's aren't happy, only 60% of registered voters turned out last time, this time they need 2/3 majority of registered voters to vote against the constitution, not 2/3 of those who turn out to vote.
Who do you think put the Shiites up to that one? Any conspiracy theories forming yet?
Them pesky bandidos yanquis!
Who do you think put the Shiites up to that one? Any conspiracy theories forming yet?
Hard to say, sounds like someone with plenty of experience of rigging elections though.
I wonder what would happen if they tried that here, in a reforendum on the European constitution say, decided it would pass unless over half the electorate voted against not half the people who voted.
Last I heard from Tal Afar was no water or electricity yet and most houses flattened, though rebuilding had started in the Shia quarter. Operation "Iron Fist" moves on but they might be running out of Iraqi army to leave behind guarding the polling booths from Sunnis.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.