Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ireland to take in Guantanamo Prisoners

2

Comments

  • #52
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Nodin wrote: »
    This 'discussion' ended back here. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61363697&postcount=30

    Since then its just been mocking the hysterical......

    Who has been hysterical ? If all you can do is accuse people of being hysterical . . . well you know the rest.

    At least the people opposed to this bother to check more than one media source.

    If they are (as you insist) all such 'passive moo-cows', and not jihad supporting sharia ****heads, all miraculously wrongly accused then why exactly does america not want to take them in ? Their problem, their mess - they should be the ones cleaning up. Not our lapdog of a govt at the beckoning of the bleeding heart amnesty international.


  • #53
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Morlar wrote: »
    ...If they are (as you insist) all such 'passive moo-cows', and not jihad supporting sharia ****heads, all miraculously wrongly accused then why exactly does America not want to take them in ? Their problem, their mess - they should be the ones cleaning up. Not our lapdog of a govt at the beckoning of the bleeding heart amnesty international.

    Spot on!


  • #54
    bluerain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭bluerain


    Bowing down to the Yanks again as usual.


  • #55
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Morlar wrote: »
    Who has been hysterical ? If all you can do is accuse people of being hysterical . . . well you know the rest.

    At least the people opposed to this bother to check more than one media source.

    If they are (as you insist) all such 'passive moo-cows', and not jihad supporting sharia ****heads, all miraculously wrongly accused then why exactly does america not want to take them in ? Their problem, their mess - they should be the ones cleaning up. Not our lapdog of a govt at the beckoning of the bleeding heart amnesty international.

    I think you'll find i checked several.

    And let's think about this for half a second, we're talking about 2 men who have been held by america for the past five or so years, held without charge, interrogated and had nothing to do with ANYTHING. Now not only was that done to them by people who claim to be bringing democracy to the world, but also did this with the apparant backing of the american people.

    Frankly, i can understand that they don't want to stay in the nation that is still run by the agencies that OK'd their treatment and people who apparantly backed it.
    Complaining that "MURKA SHUD TAKE 'EM" ignores the fact that these people have every reason not to want to stay there, and seeing as they can't go home, what else do you suggest?

    In true irish style, we lamented the existance of gitmo while letting them ship those people via shannon, the very least we could have done is step up and say we'll take those who wish to come here.

    And lest we forget it's two people, not the entire population of Guantanamo. Some perspective would be fucking nice.


  • #56
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Morlar wrote: »
    Their problem, their mess - they should be the ones cleaning up. Not our lapdog of a govt at the beckoning of the bleeding heart amnesty international.

    Yep, hysterical. In more ways than one.


  • #57
    ihadu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭ihadu


    Sposs wrote: »
    I think its fair to say, after 5 years of torture from the american army looking for answers as to their guilt, that theres a good chance their innocent.

    they'll want to take their anger and resentment out somewhere...good auld irish generosity, the country is skint and we're taking more in...


  • #58
    mirror mirror
    Closed Accounts Posts: 363 ✭✭mirror mirror


    will they be entitled to dole,rent allowance,medical card ,childrens allowance for their offspring back in whatever kip they came from.:mad::mad:


  • #59
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    I think you'll find i checked several.

    That post was not in reply to you.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    we're talking about 2 men who have been held by america for the past five or so years, held without charge, interrogated and had nothing to do with ANYTHING. Now not only was that done to them by people who claim ....

    Just because they were not convicted does not mean that they had no cause to be arrested in the first place.

    They were not all 'hapless tourists on holiday'. Trying to claim they were lacks credibility.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    "MURKA SHUD TAKE 'EM" ignores the fact that these people have every reason not to want to stay there, and seeing as they can't go home, what else do you suggest?

    Ah south park. Impressive. Original. Riiiight.

    Trying to characterise people who do not think this is a great idea as 'rednecks' is hardly even worth speedreading nevermind bothering to respond to. This way of responding is really not as impressive as you seem to think. Seriously. Also your missing the point that it is the americans who do not want them (presumably their internal security considerations play a part in this decision) and not vice versa.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    In true irish style, we lamented the existance of gitmo while letting them ship those people via shannon, the very least we could have done is step up and say we'll take those who wish to come here.

    No WE did not. An overly vocal minority on the left whined relentlessly about it as they had nothing better to do with their time, and needed to put meaning to their empty lives, by attacking america to the benefit of the sorts of people who would put their heads on sticks given half a chance. You do not speak for WE.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    And lest we forget it's two people, not the entire population of Guantanamo. Some perspective would be fucking nice.

    Ummm - point out where anyone here has said that it is ALL of gtmo ?

    Btw it is 2 of them and their families to be correct.


  • #60
    The Saint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Morlar wrote: »
    Quick question. Did you believe OJ's lawyer too ?
    I don't believe that the US would release them if they believed that they were a threat and that they'd be put on trial like the others that are being kept there. If the US had evidence that he was a jihadi then I would suspect that he wouldn't be released. Do you have any evidence at all that he is a jihadi? No? Well then.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yep, hysterical. In more ways than one.

    Snappy retort you got there.


  • #62
    Wompa1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,252 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    Why not take them? I live in Galway which relies pretty much on tourism..mostly American and some Industry..mostly American companies. Lets scratch each others back and have a sexy party!


  • #63
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Wompa1 wrote: »
    Why not take them? I live in Galway which relies pretty much on tourism..mostly American and some Industry..mostly American companies. Lets scratch each others back and have a sexy party!

    Can we make that plan B ? ?


  • #64
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Morlar wrote: »
    Just because they were not convicted does not mean that they had no cause to be arrested in the first place.

    They were not all 'hapless tourists on holiday'. Trying to claim they were lacks credibility.

    Actually, by the americans own admission over 50% have done nothing against the coalition or it's allies, and only 8% were actual terrorists AND that these two men have been judged to not be a threat, would put them very much in the "no cause to be arrested" category.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Ah south park. Impressive. Original. Riiiight.

    The daily show, actually.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Trying to characterise people who do not think this is a great idea as 'rednecks' is hardly even worth speedreading nevermind bothering to respond to. This way of responding is really not as impressive as you seem to think. Seriously. Also your missing the point that it is the americans who do not want them (presumably their internal security considerations play a part in this decision) and not vice versa.

    Got anything to back that up with?
    Because as far as i'm aware the choice is with the prisoners, some of whom have been/or will be relocated to the US.


    Morlar wrote: »
    No WE did not. An overly vocal minority on the left whined relentlessly about it as they had nothing better to do with their time, and needed to put meaning to their empty lives, by attacking america to the benefit of the sorts of people who would put their heads on sticks given half a chance. You do not speak for WE.

    really, care to explain this then.
    Mr Ahern said: 'The Government has consistently called for [Guantanamo's] closure'

    The irish government has made several calls, along with the rest of europe for the closure of Guantanamo, hence why we were then asked to help in dealing with the people who were released without charge. Seems pretty simple to me.

    Morlar wrote: »
    Btw it is 2 of them and their families to be correct.

    i wasn't aware that their entire families were being held at Guantanamo as well...


  • #65
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Actually, by the americans own admission over 50% have done nothing against the coalition or it's allies, and only 8% were actual terrorists AND that these two men have been judged to not be a threat, would put them very much in the "no cause to be arrested" category.

    Judged to be so little of a threat that the u.s. are pawning them off around the world to the dumbest bidder.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    The daily show, actually.

    equally original of you then.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Got anything to back that up with?
    Because as far as i'm aware the choice is with the prisoners, some of whom have been/or will be relocated to the US.

    Where did you read that these prisoners will be re-patriated to the US ? You are the only one making that claim. Congress vetoed obamas plans to relocate them in the usa which is why we are in the current situation.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    really, care to explain this then.

    What I said was
    No WE did not. An overly vocal minority on the left whined relentlessly about it as they had nothing better to do with their time, and needed to put meaning to their empty lives, by attacking america to the benefit of the sorts of people who would put their heads on sticks given half a chance. You do not speak for WE.

    You respond to a link to the rte story about the detainees coming here - as if it proves otherwise ?
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    The irish government has made several calls, along with the rest of europe for the closure of Guantanamo, hence why we were then asked to help in dealing with the people who were released without charge. Seems pretty simple to me.

    Yes they kind of talked themselves into a corner on that one (unlike the whole of the rest of europe btw) . I wonder how many will end up in say, Israel for example ?
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    i wasn't aware that their entire families were being held at Guantanamo as well...

    Why does replying to any posts from you involve at some point having to say - 'I did not actually say that' or 'point out where someone said that' ??


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Seriously, The main point is that we are taking in people who nobody will employ thus sucking the money from our economy's shriveled teet.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Morlar wrote: »
    Judged to be so little of a threat that the u.s. are pawning them off around the world to the dumbest bidder.

    That's one way of looking at it, i'll certainly give you that.

    Morlar wrote: »
    Where did you read that these prisoners will be re-patriated to the US ? You are the only one making that claim. Congress vetoed obamas plans to relocate them in the usa which is why we are in the current situation.

    hardly. According to US Attorney General Eric Holder, they are planning to relocate 20 or so (17 of which are chinese muslims) to the US, and there the general plan is to release some and transfer other. Which is here, and a similar statement from National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair is here

    Which is exactly what i said.

    Morlar wrote: »
    You respond to a link to the rte story about the detainees coming here - as if it proves otherwise ?

    You claimed that irish had never called for the closure of Guantanamo and it was "An overly vocal minority on the left". The link i provided shows our government re-stating that they have consistantly called for it's closure.
    Now, either Finna Fail shifted sides on the political spectrum when i wasn't looking, or i was correct in my assestment that we HAVE called for the closure of Guantanamo.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Yes they kind of talked themselves into a corner on that one (unlike the whole of the rest of europe btw) . I wonder how many will end up in say, Israel for example ?

    Really?
    Because the rest of europe has been just as vocal as we have on this subject, including the german chancellor, french president and several members of the UK parliment.


    Morlar wrote: »
    Why does replying to any posts from you involve at some point having to say - 'I did not actually say that' or 'point out where someone said that' ??

    Because people always seem to get butthurt when i point out the irrelivance or nonsensical nature of what they've just posted.


    This entire thread has been about the fact we're accepting two detaineees from Guantanamo bay and the hysteria that followed based on the fact that people seem to honestly believe they are out to get us.

    Now, please tell me what significance this extra information has on that?
    Come on. granted it makes the theard title slightly inaccurate, but aside from that what is it's relivance.
    We're been debating over the supposed threat these people pose and is ireland right in offering asylum?

    Tell me what is the significance, why bring it up unless you're trying to create the illusion of there being something sinister going on.


  • #68
    junkyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭junkyard


    Maybe I'm missing something here but why don't they send them back to where they arrested them in the first place? I'm sure they'd be happy to be free in they're own country.


  • #69
    ihadu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭ihadu


    junkyard wrote: »
    Maybe I'm missing something here but why don't they send them back to where they arrested them in the first place? I'm sure they'd be happy to be free in they're own country.

    they'd be murdered for "co operating" with the americans. why don't america take them...oh wait...


  • #70
    rantyface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 496 ✭✭rantyface


    junkyard wrote: »
    Maybe I'm missing something here but why don't they send them back to where they arrested them in the first place? I'm sure they'd be happy to be free in they're own country.

    They're not safe in their own countries unfortunately!
    Afaik we're only taking two. This is one of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oibek_Jamalundinovich_Jabarov


  • #71
    Wompa1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,252 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    Morlar wrote: »
    Can we make that plan B ? ?

    Not a fan of sexy partys eh? you one of dem new fangled homeo-sex-uals? *spits in a spitoon and grabs crotch*....No I don't think!..Never!


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    According to US Attorney General Eric Holder, they are planning to relocate 20 or so (17 of which are chinese muslims) to the US, and there the general plan is to release some and transfer other. Which is here, and a similar statement from National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair is here

    Here is a from al jazeera (today)

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/07/2009729132835827412.html

    The EU-US agreement stops short of insisting that Washington help finance resettlement operations, noting only that "the United States will consider contributing to the costs incurred by EU member states."

    The prospect of transferring the remaining approximately 240 inmates in Guantanamo to top security jails in the US remains deeply unpopular in the US Congress.

    Yahoo news (today)

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090729/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_guantanamo

    The moves offer ammunition to critics of U.S. lawmakers who, faced with strong opposition from their home districts, have opposed any Guantanamo resettlements on American soil.

    The links you provided were from march and may.

    One said 'Terror inmates may be released in US: intel chief'.

    The other said "Some Guantanamo prisoners could be released in US"
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    You claimed that........... "An overly vocal minority on the left"

    That is correct.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Really?
    Because the rest of europe has been just as vocal as we have on this subject, including the german chancellor, french president and several members of the UK parliment.

    . . . .and several members of the uk parliament', kind of ran out of names there no ? That sentence seemed to trail off into a mumble pretty quickly,.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Because people always seem to get butthurt when i point out the irrelivance or nonsensical nature of what they've just posted.

    I think your delusions are funny, in a telling kind of way.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    This entire thread has been about the fact we're accepting two detaineees from Guantanamo bay

    Yes it has.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    and the hysteria that followed based on the fact that people seem to honestly believe they are out to get us.

    Concern does not equal hysteria. No one here is hysterical on the 'no we should not be taking them' side of the discussion anyway.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Now, please tell me what significance this extra information has on that?
    Come on. granted it makes the theard title slightly inaccurate, but aside from that what is it's relivance.
    We're been debating over the supposed threat these people pose and is ireland right in offering asylum?

    Tell me what is the significance, why bring it up unless you're trying to create the illusion of there being something sinister going on.

    This is the part where you go off on a tangent that is too boring to even respond to. Fact :)
    Wompa1 wrote: »
    Not a fan of sexy partys eh? you one of dem new fangled homeo-sex-uals? *spits in a spitoon and grabs crotch*....No I don't think!..Never!

    Think you might be going a little bit off track yourself there sonnyjim.


  • #73
    Purple Gorilla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    Biggins wrote: »
    I find it depressingly laughable.
    ** Still shaking head in unbelievability **
    We can't get rid of all our own terrorists yet we are importing more!

    Classic stupid, moronic Irish politician action.

    Whats the new Irish thinking...?
    If we are going to be up to our waists in the schite - hell! - raise the level and lets be up to our necks in it instead!
    I wouldn't solely blame this government. Any other party would have done the same if in government because Ireland does not have enough of an indigenous industry to support ourselves and the US is our biggest investor. We need the US so our government has to just bend over whenever they say.


  • #74
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Morlar wrote: »
    Yes.



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8174262.stm

    Amnesty International said that Mr Jabbarov's wife and child were in a refugee camp in Pakistan and that he would be able to apply for them to join him.

    Of course anything other than family re-unification & state assistance would be against these people's civil rights.
    Wife and child held in refugee camp, trying to flee to Ireland to be united with a man wrongly in an American prison, terrorists, Pakistan. I think we have our next Rambo film.
    Biggins wrote: »
    I find it depressingly laughable.
    ** Still shaking head in unbelievability **
    We can't get rid of all our own terrorists yet we are importing more!
    It'll be like what happened in Australia with the rabbits.


  • #75
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Hospitals closing, children being taught in prefabs, welfare being cut, workers getting taxed to ribbons, yet we have money to house and feed suspected terrorists and their families?

    Ireland, the mind boggles.


  • #76
    Purple Gorilla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Hospitals closing, children being taught in prefabs, welfare being cut, workers getting taxed to ribbons, yet we have money to house and feed suspected terrorists and their families?

    Ireland, the mind boggles.
    The US is paying Ireland for each prisoner we take to house the prisoners and pay for them etc.

    I'm sure the government will get something out of this aswell


  • #77
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,609 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Guys why does this action surprise you?.

    Ireland, and its successive governments have always had an aversion to fighting terrorism, be that IRA active service units operating almost carte blance from the Irish republic to providing 'sactuary' to two of the Palestinian terriorists involved in the seige of the Church of the Nativity in 2002 (Bethlehem).

    Let me introduce you to these two..

    JIHAD YOUSSEF KHALIL JAARA..

    He was born in 1971, has 4 children
    TERROR: Hamas, Fatah and Tanzim, and the Palestinian security forces.
    CRIMES: Involved in shooting attacks in Gilo, and Jericho area,
    including the killing of Israeli officer Amir Zohar and a deadly shooting
    attack against a bus on the Jericho bypass road. Supplied weapons to
    the Tanzim, hid wanted men and supports suicide bombings.
    March 26, 2002 Jaara dispatched a suicide bomber in a failed attack near
    a shopping mall.

    And the equally adorable RAMI KAMEL EID KAMEL.

    Born in 1980
    TERROR: Tanzim and Palestinian activist from Bethlehem
    Primary terrorist behind shooting, fatal mortar attacks in Gilo, Jerusalem
    COUNTRY - IRELAND April, 2003 update: Rami Kamel, married an Irish woman.

    Irish governments have always seen terrorism as nothing worse than a more vigorous form of political activity.

    Its fvcking disgusting that we're taking in more, but hardly surprising.

    .


  • #78
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Hospitals closing, children being taught in prefabs, welfare being cut, workers getting taxed to ribbons, yet we have money to house and feed suspected terrorists and their families?

    Ireland, the mind boggles.

    I bolded and underlined the key word for you there.

    Like Purple Gorilla said, the US will pay us to take the prisoners off their hands.


  • #79
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    OctavarIan wrote: »
    I bolded and underlined the key word for you there.

    Well thats alright then, they are only suspected terrorists, why where they thousands of miles away from their country of origin, in a warzone, on a picnic perhaps?:rolleyes:
    OctavarIan wrote: »
    Like Purple Gorilla said, the US will pay us to take the prisoners off their hands.

    Linky? I do not care who is paying for their stay. I do not want to live anywhere near suspected islamic terrorists, thank you very much.


  • #80
    soundsham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,848 ✭✭✭soundsham


    few months here they'll be begging to go back


  • #81
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    soundsham wrote: »
    few months here they'll be begging to go back

    Sure they will, just like the other 90,000 foreigners living off the Irish taxpayer whilst collecting their dole payments, childrens allowance, medical cards, rent supplement, etc etc:rolleyes:

    But never fear, my grandchildren will pick up the tab.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Morlar wrote: »
    Here is a from al jazeera (today)
    -- snipped for space --


    Hey! links, now we're getting somewhere.
    They still don't say anything we didn't already know though, and opposition to things in congress, what a shock.

    The plan is to house some in the states because they cannot be repatriated and they as of yet be found a 3rd party nation that will are willing to offer them asylum.

    Now, if you're quite ready, tell me exactly

    a] What part of the above is untrue
    b] What part of anything you've linked dispoves the launching point for this whole little detour, which is that the guantanamo prisoners have a choice in where they wish to go and that choice is "not the states".
    Morlar wrote: »
    That is correct.

    So, our government is a left wing one then. Fancy that, you might want to tell them though, they seem to think they're centre-right.

    Morlar wrote: »
    . . . .and several members of the uk parliament', kind of ran out of names there no ? That sentence seemed to trail off into a mumble pretty quickly,.

    Fine, then here's some more
    Peter Hain,
    Lord Goldsmith,
    Lord Falconer,
    David Davis,
    the 20 members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Guantanamo Bay

    I can keep digging if you'd like?

    Morlar wrote: »
    I think your delusions are funny, in a telling kind of way.

    Hey, you're the one who want's to make a big deal over nothing and can't back that up

    and speaking of...
    Morlar wrote: »
    This is the part where you go off on a tangent that is too boring to even respond to. Fact :)

    Ahh, so it was just innane pointscoring bullshit. Cool


  • #83
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Hey! links, now we're getting somewhere. They still don't say anything we didn't already know though, and opposition to things in congress, what a shock.

    The links you provided were a 'maybe' and a 'might' from march and may. The links I posted are from yesterday and illustrate my point and disprove yours.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Now, if you're quite ready, tell me exactly
    a] What part of the above is untrue
    b] What part of anything you've linked dispoves the launching point for this whole little detour, which is that the guantanamo prisoners have a choice in where they wish to go and that choice is "not the states".

    Your assertion is that a) america is offering the gtmo peeps residence in the USA. And b) that it is only through their choice that they prefer to leave the residency they can avail of in the USA and come to europe ?

    I dont have to disprove that - you would need to prove that to begin with.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    So, our government is a left wing one then

    If I had said that our govt was a left wing this sentence would make sense.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Fine, then here's some more Peter Hain,
    Lord Goldsmith,Lord Falconer,David Davis,the 20 members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Guantanamo Bay[/URL]

    So that would be 20 members out of the british parliament then. Thundering european mandate.
    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    you're the one who want's to make a big deal over nothing and can't back that up

    Actually you started this offshoot from the main thread by saying "Frankly, i can understand that they don't want to stay in the nation "

    Your assertion is that
    a) america is offering the gtmo peeps residence in the USA.
    b) that it is only through their choice that they prefer to leave the residency they can avail of in the USA and come to europe ?

    I dont have to disprove that - you would need to prove that to begin with.


  • #84
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ah well, we all moaned about George W for long enough, now is the time to put the money where the mouth is, or not?

    I suppose those who moaned then, but now are moaning too, Are just Sitters on the fence?

    Of course it's the US's business, which is why we all put our nose in it! If we'd kept out of it then, I could see the point.

    Most of us would prefer to forget all that and wring our hands of it. Very convenient.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #85
    Nforce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭Nforce


    BVB wrote: »
    Guilty or not , the public will never know when or where they will arrive or what they look like . For all we know they could arrive tomorrow or in two years .

    Their orange jumpsuits will be a bit of a giveaway,though. ;):P

    Anyhow.........I for one will welcome them with open arms. I'm sure that they'll be overjoyed to be leaving behind an island run by a shower of b@stards,where they've been oppressed for years, and have had to live with little or no prospects of living in a free and just society.............only to arrive here.....an island run by.... etc etc.:(


  • #86
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Kamila Lively Cage wrote: »
    Guys why does (.....)more, but hardly surprising.


    ....resisting the occupation hardly equates to "terrorism".....although some people have a problem with Palestinians....
    paulied wrote:
    Well thats alright then, they are only suspected terrorists, why where they thousands of miles away from their country of origin, in a warzone, on a picnic perhaps
    .

    Of course its that kind of 'no smoke without fire' thinking thats the reason they can't go back.


  • #87
    Bob Z
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Bob Z


    But shouldnt Guantanamo Bay Take 2 Irish prisoners in exchange? Say 2 gangsters from Limerick?


  • #88
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course its that kind of 'no smoke without fire' thinking thats the reason they can't go back.

    Do the the two men in question have a reasonable excuse for being in a warzone, thousands of miles away from their countries origin? Humanitarian work?


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    maybe a stupid question but why arent they allowed go home?


  • #90
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Do the the two men in question have a reasonable excuse for being in a warzone, thousands of miles away from their countries origin?

    I fucking despair betimes.....

    Try looking up Uzbekistan on a map, and then get back to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Except they aren't terrorists.
    Firstly, from the US themselves


    Linkey

    So out of everyone in there we have 8% of actual al Qaeda members.

    right, but 8% is still alot cheese, you left-liberal loon, AND YOU SAID THEY WEREN'T TERRORISTS! i hear you say.

    Yes, and now we do some simple math.

    Of the remaining 240 at Guantanamo, 100 are considered too dangerous to be released from custody; 80 could face criminal charges in US courts but could be freed if acquitted; and 60 have been cleared for release (and it's as low as 30 in some reports), but cannot be sent home because their own countries would likely harm them. URL="http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.2484800.0.EU_leaders_are_willing_to_take_Guantanamo_Bay_prisoners.php"]Link[/URL (including some 17 chinese muslims who will most likely be relocated to the US)

    So, we're talking about 60(max) to 13(min) people spread amongst a good chunk of the EU (because several EU countries have also made noises about accepting Guantanamo detainees, and it's up the the people themselves to decide where to go)

    ok, so, is that all cleared up? Can we stop acting like hysterical children now?

    Great they are innocent, so why not send them home then? And surely the 200,000 alleged price for rehoming them would be better spent on compensating them for their time behind bars?? This smells funny

    Linkey
    ERROR 404 - Page Not Found

    If you feel that you have reached this page in error, please try the following:

    * If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
    * Open the home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
    * Click the Back button to try another link.
    * Return to the Seton Hall | Law Home Page
    any better link for that?


  • #92
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    I fucking despair betimes.....

    Try looking up Uzbekistan on a map, and then get back to me.

    Yep, still thousands of miles away from where they where picked up. Hasnt moved.


  • #93
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    maybe a stupid question but why arent they allowed go home?

    They've been clear to go home since 2007. However, they had actually fled Uzbekistan for Afghanistan. As the Uzbek Government has the tendency to boil people it doesn't like alive, it was thought sending them back there might be a tad harsh.


  • #94
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    Yep, still thousands of miles away from where they where picked up. Hasnt moved.

    You sure you looked it up?


  • #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Nodin wrote: »
    They've been clear to go home since 2007. However, they had actually fled Uzbekistan for Afghanistan. As the Uzbek Government has the tendency to boil people it doesn't like alive, it was thought sending them back there might be a tad harsh.

    well that sucks, why dont the yanks take them, its their problem they took them and moved them thousands of miles away not us.
    My point is why arent the United States taking these people in? This makes me suspicious!


  • #96
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    They've been clear to go home since 2007. However, they had actually fled Uzbekistan for Afghanistan. As the Uzbek Government has the tendency to boil people it doesn't like alive, it was thought sending them back there might be a tad harsh.

    I am sure they can find another islamic paradise to live in. I, and I am sure many others, do not want to live on the same island as suspected islamic terrorists.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    well that sucks, why dont the yanks take them, its their problem they took them and moved them thousands of miles away not us.

    One could say the same or a variation thereof with regards to money for famines, Bosnian refugees, Vietnamese boat people or endangered species of animals. It's called 'doing the right thing', and raises us above the level of many species of animal.


  • #98
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    I am sure they can find another islamic paradise to live in. I, and I am sure many others, do not want to live on the same island as suspected islamic terrorists.

    ..which, considering the number of convicted terrorists out on licence, including some whose catchphrase was 'yabba dabba doo, any taig will do' strikes me as a rather selective fear.


  • #99
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    ..which, considering the number of convicted terrorists out on licence, including some whose catchphrase was 'yabba dabba doo, any taig will do' strikes me as a rather selective fear.

    We have terrorists on this wee island, sure, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we would want to import, and house and feed, more.


  • #100
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PaulieD wrote: »
    We have terrorists on this wee island, sure, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we would want to import, and house and feed, more.

    Becuase we protested against Guantanamo, and if they go back to Afghanistan or Uzbekistan they'll be killed.


  • #101
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Nodin wrote: »
    One could say the same or a variation thereof with regards to money for famines, Bosnian refugees, Vietnamese boat people or endangered species of animals. It's called 'doing the right thing', and raises us above the level of many species of animal.

    Ah, pulling on the heart strings now. Mazel Tov!:rolleyes:

    There is a major difference between "Bosnian refugees" and suspected islamic terrorists, as well you know.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement