Why I love rags

Gotnolegs said:
MI5 has powers related to intelligence gathering regarding security within the UK, as far as I am aware they have no powers of arrest or detention, though I could be worng on this.
Click to expand...
I know MI6 is like the CIA, so I just assumed that MI5 was like the FBI...:shrug:

So now comes the question you knew I was going to ask...If MI5 was/is involved, does that mean that, on some level, those UK citizens are being held with approval from your government on some level?
 
Good.......I hope they dramatise it as much as possible. I'm amazed that folks take the fact that innocent people were locked up for no reason so casually :rolleyes:

Stalin would be proud........even his methods never came close to causing such widspread apathy in the USSR.....
 
Gotnolegs said:
For those of you who find the Mirror's credibilty a little on the thin side here is the same story in a much more respectable paper.

The Times
Click to expand...


It's effectivly the same article with a few more details throw in on the Times' side of it. The quotes from the detainee are the same.
 
This Just In!!!

Now that you've clicked the link, you know how I feel about tabloids...I'm sure the Times is a good paper, but, if they copied from the mirror... :shrug:
 
Oz said:
Good.......I hope they dramatise it as much as possible. I'm amazed that folks take the fact that innocent people were locked up for no reason so casually :rolleyes:

Stalin would be proud........even his methods never came close to causing such widspread apathy in the USSR.....
Click to expand...

The whole premise is that nobody knows who is innocent, and who is guilty, Oz. :rolleyes:

Most were captured in Afghanistan ...
 
Gotnolegs said:
No what? In the other thread you said that you thought the imprisonment of these people was ok, I was wondering how you felt now you have read the account of one of them.
Click to expand...



I have already said on here as well:


I stand by waht I said before. what the fuck is so damn hard to understand about that. read what I fucking post. thank you
 
Gato_Solo said:
The whole premise is that nobody knows who is innocent, and who is guilty, Oz. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


And surely the idea is actually find out if someone is innocent or guilty and then lock them up?

Where does it end? Are the authorities gonna start locking people away just because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Maybe they just don't look right? Or maybe the whole thing is just one huge publicity stunt to boost TWAT? Y'think? :rolleyes:
 
Oz said:
And surely the idea is actually find out if someone is innocent or guilty and then lock them up?

Where does it end? Are the authorities gonna start locking people away just because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Maybe they just don't look right? Or maybe the whole thing is just one huge publicity stunt to boost TWAT? Y'think? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Easier said than done in this case. Besides...we're not talking about a police force. We're talking about an army. Big difference.
 
The idea Oz is to find out if they are. It is also to get information if it is available. It can and has been abused yes but there are reasons for it being there.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Easier said than done in this case. Besides...we're not talking about a police force. We're talking about an army. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I can accept that they are not being held as civilians.......yet they are not being treat as POW's ......... in fact they are not being treat as anything except prisoners of circumstance that may have been affiliated with with authorities which may have aided and carried out terrorist activities.

If they are proven criminals/have commited war crimes try them as such and sentence them.......don't whinge if you have to let innocent people free and then they talk in the press about the conditions they endured while being falsely improsoned.
 
freako104 said:
The idea Oz is to find out if they are. It is also to get information if it is available. It can and has been abused yes but there are reasons for it being there.
Click to expand...

What reasons? (except TWAT propoganda) is there really anyone who would rather see people held at a governments whim? Rather than see a fair trial?

You can't get information out of an innocent person. :rolleyes:
 
This is starting to sound like every other arguement re: these prisoners.

Time for quick hijacking!

Hey Gonz! - what's with the title of this thread? Why I like Rags?

That's enther a racial epitaph or some weird play-on-words that I jsut don't get.
 
Oz said:
I can accept that they are not being held as civilians.......yet they are not being treat as POW's ......... in fact they are not being treat as anything except prisoners of circumstance that may have been affiliated with with authorities which may have aided and carried out terrorist activities.

If they are proven criminals/have commited war crimes try them as such and sentence them.......don't whinge if you have to let innocent people free and then they talk in the press about the conditions they endured while being falsely improsoned.
Click to expand...

Okay...back to square one and the Geneva Convention...

If I'm taking fire from an unknown source, and have a chance to capture anybody in the area, that's what I'm going to do. The Geneva convention is clear on this...

1. Uniforms. Any person captured who may have been shooting must be in uniform to get POW treatment. If they aren't, and we can 'prove' they were shooting, then we can shoot them out of hand. Unfortunately, if there are'nt proper controls, you can end up shooting a whole village to get one, or two, gunmen. The proof? A bullet whizzing by your head is proof enough that there is hostile intent. If nobody tries to help you, or run away, then you have a situation where you might as well surround the place and take everyone prisoner. You can let some go out of hand because they are either too old, too young, or too infirmed to shoot. You do not release foreign nationals unless they are members of the press, the peace corps, or any charitable group. At this point, everyone else is suspect. Perhaps you folks would feel better if we just lined them up in front of a wall and executed the lot of them? :shrug:
 
MrBishop said:
This is starting to sound like every other arguement re: these prisoners.

Time for quick hijacking!

Hey Gonz! - what's with the title of this thread? Why I like Rags?

That's enther a racial epitaph or some weird play-on-words that I jsut don't get.
Click to expand...


You're righ Bishop......I've gotten into this bullshit on a dozen different forums over the last year :D

If people enjoy living under that kinda government........it's their choice, nothing to do with me :shrug:

"Rag" is the nickname given to any paper that the reader doesn't agree with :)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Okay...back to square one and the Geneva Convention...

If I'm taking fire from an unknown source, and have a chance to capture anybody in the area, that's what I'm going to do. The Geneva convention is clear on this...

1. Uniforms. Any person captured who may have been shooting must be in uniform to get POW treatment. If they aren't, and we can 'prove' they were shooting, then we can shoot them out of hand. Unfortunately, if there are'nt proper controls, you can end up shooting a whole village to get one, or two, gunmen. The proof? A bullet whizzing by your head is proof enough that there is hostile intent. If nobody tries to help you, or run away, then you have a situation where you might as well surround the place and take everyone prisoner. You can let some go out of hand because they are either too old, too young, or too infirmed to shoot. You do not release foreign nationals unless they are members of the press, the peace corps, or any charitable group. At this point, everyone else is suspect. Perhaps you folks would feel better if we just lined them up in front of a wall and executed the lot of them? :shrug:
Click to expand...


Although I gotta respond to this........

You're quoting the Geneva Convention?? LMAO!! Since when has the US ever given a flying fuck about any law, rule, guidline, suggestion, hint. rumour or agreement made on an international level that doesn't directly benefit itself??? :D

Too funny............

Call me old fashioned if you will.........but I believe that a man has a right to a fair trial before he is punished......
 
Oz said:
You're righ Bishop......I've gotten into this bullshit on a dozen different forums over the last year :D

If people enjoy living under that kinda government........it's their choice, nothing to do with me :shrug:

"Rag" is the nickname given to any paper that the reader doesn't agree with :)
Click to expand...


Only twice with me, though...Come on, mate...put'em up... :lol2:
 
Oz said:
What reasons? (except TWAT propoganda) is there really anyone who would rather see people held at a governments whim? Rather than see a fair trial?

You can't get information out of an innocent person. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



personally I am for the fair trial. I agree wiht the last part. now the reason I have taken the stand I did initially and stand by it is because it is trying to do the right thing. Get info we can use on terrorist organisations. Now is our justice system perfect? far from it. are innocent people imprisoned? you bet. but does it do something for the better? yes.
 
Oz said:
Although I gotta respond to this........

You're quoting the Geneva Convention?? LMAO!! Since when has the US ever given a flying fuck about any law, rule, guidline, suggestion, hint. rumour or agreement made on an international level that doesn't directly benefit itself??? :D

Too funny............

Call me old fashioned if you will.........but I believe that a man has a right to a fair trial before he is punished......
Click to expand...

Hate to say this, but you asked...

Our Law of Armed Conflict is based upon the Geneva Convention and international law. The US has almost always followed international law...especially when it benefits itself. Kind of like the UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc ad nauseum. If one country doen't like an aspect of international law, then they just ignore it...just like the US. Funny how that works, innit?

Call me old-fashioned, too, but I believe that if you aren't either (A) running from the commotion, (B) assisting with either side, or (C), trying to hide, then you are part of the problem. Innocent bystander, my ass... :moon: ... more like hinderance to both sides. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top