Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Great posts from Stillearly ......

I am massively proud to be a Londoner and watching all this people steam in to what must have been terrifying .......... how fcuking sad that he killed two of our brightest and best only trying to make the world a better place.

Loathe the Corbyn's Johnson's Sadiq Khan's and the rest of that shambles trying to make political points out of this.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner that I love ............ sing along chaps .......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to really get pissed off, read this story:  British IS bomber 'didn't deserve compensation'   Jamal al-Harith (aka Ronald Fiddler and Abu-Zakariya al-Britani) had been detained two years at Guantanamo Bay after having been turned over by local militia in Afghanistan to U.S. forces.  He received the equivalent of one million USD(!) from the UK government as compensation for his time at Guantanamo.

It's crazy because none of the guys held at Gitmo were innocent.  All had some sort of connection to the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other militant groups. Not all were die-hard jihadists, but they supported Islamic terrorism in some fashion.  The taliban didn't allow foreigners into Afghanistan as backpackers or as volunteers to drill wells. It's clear some of the British and other European detainees were in over they heads, but they have themselves to blame.

Evil

Edited by Evil Penevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

If you want to really get pissed off, read this story:  British IS bomber 'didn't deserve compensation'   Jamal al-Harith (aka Ronald Fiddler and Abu-Zakariya al-Britani) had been detained two years at Guantanamo Bay after having been turned over by local militia in Afghanistan to U.S. forces.  He received the equivalent of one million USD(!) from the UK government as compensation for his time at Guantanamo.

It's crazy because none of the guys held at Gitmo were innocent.  All had some sort of connection to the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other militant groups. Not all were die-hard jihadists, but they supported Islamic terrorism in some fashion.  The taliban didn't allow foreigners into Afghanistan as backpackers or as volunteers to drill wells. It's clear some of the British and other European detainees were in over they heads, but they have themselves to blame.

Evil

I'm going to play devil's advocate!

"It's crazy because none of the guys held at Gitmo were innocent." So they were guilty of something. What is that? Fighting in a foreign war isn't a crime - just look how many did in the Spanish civil war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bazle said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate!

"It's crazy because none of the guys held at Gitmo were innocent." So they were guilty of something. What is that? Fighting in a foreign war isn't a crime - just look how many did in the Spanish civil war.

The most likely charge would be the following (link) :

Support to Terrorists.JPG

But there are other violations which could apply, depending on the circumstances.  On this list, it's numbers 12-16 which are most likely.

1. Aircraft Piracy and Related Offenses (49 U.S.C. §§ 46501-07)
2. Aircraft Sabotage (18 U.S.C. 32)
3. Violence At International Airports (18 U.S.C. 37)
4. Crimes Against Immediate Family of All Federal Officials (18 U.S.C. § 115)
5. Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (18 U.S.C. § § 112, 878, 1116, 1201(a)(4))
6. Crimes Against Select U.S. Officials (18 U.S.C. § 111, 351, 1114, 1201(a)(5), 1751)
7. Murder-for-Hire (18 U.S.C. 1958)
8. Crimes Committed Within The Special Maritime Jurisdiction Of The U.S. (18 U.S.C. 7, 113, 114, 1111, 1112, 1201, 2031, 2111)
9. Sea Piracy (18 U.S.C. 1651)
10. Violence Against Maritime Navigation And Maritime Fixed Platforms (18 U.S.C. 2280, 2281)
11. Hostage Taking (18 U.S.C. 1203)
12. Terrorist Acts Abroad Against U.S. Nationals (18 U.S.C. 2332)
13. Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries (18 U.S.C. § 2332b)
14. Conspiracy Within The U.S. To Murder, Kidnap, Or Maim Persons Or To Damage Certain Property Overseas (18 U.S.C. 956)
15. Providing Material Support To Terrorists (18 U.S.C. § 2339A)
16. Providing Material Support To Designated Terrorist Organizations (Fundraising) (18 U.S.C. 2339B)
17. Use Of Biological, Nuclear, Chemical Or Other Weapons Of Mass Destruction (18 U.S.C. 175, 831, 2332c, 2332a)
18. International Traffic In Arms Regulations
19. Genocide (18 U.S.C. 1091)
20. Torture (18 U.S.C. 2340A)

Both the U.S. and U.K. have laws on the books from the 1800s which make it illegal for their respective nationals to serve in foreign armies.  

18 U.S. Code § 959.Enlistment in foreign service

(a) Whoever, within the United States, enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

However, a U.S. court case from 1896 held that law only applies if the defendant physically enlisted in a foreign military force while in the U.S. That technicality saved many thousands of U.S. citizens from prosecution for fighting in foreign wars.

Evil

 

Edited by Evil Penevil
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

Both the U.S. and U.K. have laws on the books from the 1800s which make it illegal for their respective nationals to serve in foreign armies.  

Thanks. I don't have the inclination to look up all those items of legislation, but your comment above surprises me.

What about the guys who have gone abroad to fight AGAINST the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the like? And I still don't believe the Brits who went to fight in Spain were charged with anything.

Or are you talking about armies of a foreign STATE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bazle said:

Thanks. I don't have the inclination to look up all those items of legislation, but your comment above surprises me.

What about the guys who have gone abroad to fight AGAINST the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the like? And I still don't believe the Brits who went to fight in Spain were charged with anything.

Or are you talking about armies of a foreign STATE?

The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 was an  Act of Parliament  that sought to forbid the participation of British subjects as mercenaries in foreign wars.  It was considered unsuccessful.   The Foreign Enlistment Act and the Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939    

"This article examines the official response to the policy problems raised by the over two thousand Britons who went to fight for the Republic during the Spanish Civil War, with particular reference to the Foreign Enlistment Act (1870). Revived in January 1937 as a means of reducing the flow of volunteers and curbing the recruiting efforts of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the act proved embarrassingly unenforceable. Ambiguity over its applicability to the situation in Spain, combined with problems of evidence, meant that no charges were ever laid against volunteers caught attempting to leave for Spain or members of the recruiting organization of the CPGB. Though a complete failure as a legal tool, the Foreign Enlistment Act nevertheless symbolically underlined the British government's declared support for international non-intervention in Spain, and was never rescinded."

The following article considers those who go abroad to fight terrorists:  Brits abroad: is it against the law to fight Isis?

The article isn't totally clear, but it implies that it is illegal under British law to fight for a terrorist-designated organization, but it is not illegal to fight for a group which is backed by the U.K. government.

Evil

Edited by Evil Penevil
  • Great Info 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

Both the U.S. and U.K. have laws on the books from the 1800s which make it illegal for their respective nationals to serve in foreign armies.  

Still several of both origins in the Foreign Legion.

But probably with a new name and origin.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bazle said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate!

"It's crazy because none of the guys held at Gitmo were innocent." So they were guilty of something. What is that? Fighting in a foreign war isn't a crime - just look how many did in the Spanish civil war.

Good to be the Devils advocate as the Vatican proves but ........law is very clear ........ nowadays even fighting for the Kurds or the poor old Yazidis will get you locked up for a long time in the UK. same Tamil tigers etc ............ Spanish Civil war Orwell and Auden and loads of others went out different era different war.

No not a good idea even if on the right side ......... sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nampla69 said:

Good to be the Devils advocate as the Vatican proves but ........law is very clear ........ nowadays even fighting for the Kurds or the poor old Yazidis will get you locked up for a long time in the UK. same Tamil tigers etc ............ Spanish Civil war Orwell and Auden and loads of others went out different era different war.

No not a good idea even if on the right side ......... sad but true.

Where are the good old days of the Crusades ? Travelling Europe and the Middle East at your pace (walking is good for health), and free muslim bashing / killing at the end ! 

Bringing back trophies and loot to show off in the hood later when back home !

Beats following Napoleon to Moscow in the winter !

Ok, ok, we're getting slightly off topic now....Sorry !

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news over here in Canada has gotten so depressingly bad,I don’t watch anymore.

most of the time is taken up by the goofy fuckers down South,and when it is something local,it’s a cat that’s been rescued by a dog,or some shit like that.

I had to actively go out and look for this story,because I had no clue what went on.
from what I can see,the brave fuckers that charged this fucker,did a fantastic job,and the shit stain that did the killing is a c**t.

The rest I will leave up the the English,becuase it’s their business.

As I was walking down the street in our little village today,I thought “f**k,what a fantastic little place to live.The only real problem we have is dodging old fuckers in electric scooters in the streets”.


 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nampla69 said:

Good to be the Devils advocate as the Vatican proves but ....... law is very clear ........ nowadays even fighting for the Kurds or the poor old Yazidis will get you locked up for a long time in the UK. same Tamil tigers etc ............ Spanish Civil war Orwell and Auden and loads of others went out different era different war.

No not a good idea even if on the right side ......... sad but true.

This seems to be at odds with the Guardian article that EP posted a link to (https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2015/feb/25/brits-abroad-against-law-fight-isis). I quote a small part:

" .......... where does this leave people who return from fighting on the other side? Is there a distinction? “I’d say yes, because Isis is a proscribed group in the UK and clearly falls within the definition of a terrorist group. Therefore, if someone goes out there to help them, and engage in weapons training, they could fall under the provisions against aiding a terrorist group,” says Helen Fenwick, a professor of law at Durham University who specialises in counter-terrorism legislation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Thai Spice said:

Where are the good old days of the Crusades ? Travelling Europe and the Middle East at your pace (walking is good for health), and free muslim bashing / killing at the end ! 

Bringing back trophies and loot to show off in the hood later when back home !

Beats following Napoleon to Moscow in the winter !

Ok, ok, we're getting slightly off topic now....Sorry !

 

What was wrong with the Crusades ??

The English are so island centric they do not realise that it was the mad French and Belgians etc who launched the initial Crusades. 

became fascinated by it couple of years ago in Thailand and spent so much time reading about it ....  what a list of characters.

Vive la France ...... Vive les Crusades ...... le prochain année en Jerusalem. :default_drinks:

Edited by nampla69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, nampla69 said:

le prochain année en Jerusalem

Yeah, only problem is British schools ain't anymore what it was and they all thought Jerusalem was in Syria ! 😄😄😄

Some when returning home opened a madras (no, thats not an Indian restaurant..)

Well, some ended up in Pattaya, with the white horse, the shiny armor and all....Ended same, bringing the loot back home 🤣🤣🤣

Edit :

Some, tired of the cold and solitude in the fortified cities of Glasgow and Newcastle, decided to settle down in the warm, welcoming paradises of the Issan provinces.

The most erudite ones became famous scholars, locally called with respect "English teacher"

Ok, ok, i'll better head for the swimming pool ....

 

 

 

Edited by Thai Spice
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try to steer this thread back on topic.  I responded in post #27 to support the OP's point that recidivism  is a real danger among Islamic terrorists released from confinement. There have been 780 prisoners held at Gitmo through the years, only about 40 remain today. About 730 have been released and nine have died while in Gitmo.  Of those released,  121 are confirmed to have returned to jihadist activies and another 75 are suspected of having done so. That's about 27%, or one in four, of the released detainees, who return to terrorism.

The release of John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban,"  about six months ago will prove to be an interesting case.  Lindh was captured in Afghanistan as an armed member of a Taliban unit. He accepted a plea bargain on terrorism charges and was sentenced to 20 years but was released after serving 17 years (that's normal in the U.S.).  Part of the terms of his release state he cannot hold a U.S. passport or travel abroad again. The really odd thing is that Ireland accepted his claim to Irish citizenship through a grandparent even before he was released. He thereby gets access to an Irish passport that has no restrictions.  Lindh has said he itends to move to Ireland once his three-year probationary period has passed.  Lindh has never renounced his commitment to Islamism and the Taliban.

I wonder why the hell the Irish government would grant Lindh citizenship?  There's a big risk that Lindh's access to an Irish passport and the freedom he has in Ireland to use the Internet, etc., will facilitate Lindh's return to active terrorism.

Evil

 

Edited by Evil Penevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

There have been 780 prisoners held at Gitmo through the years, only about 40 remain today. Abou 730 have been released and nine have died while in Gitmo.  Of those released,  121 are confirmed to have returned to jihadist activies and another 75 are suspected of having done so. That about 27%, or one in four, of the released detainees, who return to terrorism

Let me look from another side

Being a taliban in Afganistan, is not necessarily being a terrorist. Its being a freedom figther to liberate your country from a foreign occupation (beeing it US or Russian).

Of course such a movement will be "technically" obliged to used methods that are not in line with the Geneva convention...

Remember the Resistance in WW2 in France ? For the Allies they were heroes figthing against the Germans, for the Germans they were terrorists for who the normal rules for POW do not apply. Hence they tortured them etc....

Bit same as the American point of view....

And there are plenty other examples. Colonial wars come to mind, local people figthing for independance were branded terrorists....

Terrorism is not neccesarily linked with Islamisme, even if.at this times is often is. But remember the Red Army Faction in Germany ? IRA ? ETA (the Basques) .... They were terrorist.

I am certainly not condoning any form of terror, including state terror, but it is too easy to brand somebody terrorist so that you can treat them in the most horrible way.

Trump calling Iran Revolutionnary Guard a terrorist organisation is just BS. They are no more a terrorist organization than CIA or FSB. They fight for their country.

Ok, beer at the beach.

 

 

Edited by Thai Spice
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One positive step:  London Bridge: Second terrorist returned to prison in wake of attack.  Unfortunately, it came too late for Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt.

2 hours ago, Thai Spice said:

Being a taliban in Afganistan, is not necessarily being a terrorist. Its being a freedom figther to liberate your country from a foreign occupation (beeing it US or Russian).

Of course such a movement will be "technically" obliged to used methods that are not in line with the Geneva convention...

Remember the Resistance in WW2 in France ? For the Allies they were heroes figthing against the Germans, for the Germans they were terrorists for who the normal rules for POW do not apply. Hence they tortured them etc....

This could get very political, very fast and I know that isn't allowed.  But for me, there's a huge difference between the French Resistance of WWII and the Taliban, in terms of both methods and goals.  The French Resistance  strove to drive the Germans out of France and restore an independent French democracy.  The marquis targeted German military and French collaborationists but didn't randomly attack random civilians.  In fact, the biggest and most important contributions of the French Resistance were not guerilla attacks against army units but intelligence gathering about German forces and sabotage of electrical and telephone lines, railroad tracks, bridges, etc.

The goal of the Taliban was to establish an Islamic state under strict sharia law.  From the beginning, it had nothing to do with driving out foreign occupiers. The Taliban didn't emerge  as a movement until 1994, which was five years after the withdrawal of Soviet troops and more than two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  The Taliban achieved dominance in the Afghan Civil War because it represented the Pashtun ethnic group (about 40% of the population) and had the active support of the Pakistani government. After the Taliban won the civil war and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which was noted for its brutality and was only recognized by three countries (Saudi  Arabia, Paikistan and U.A.E).  Several hundred thousand Afghans are estimated to have died at the hands of the Taliban because of religious or ethnic (tribal) differences.  The Taliban also committed one of the worst acts of cultural terrorism in history- the destruction of the monumental Buddhas of Bamyan.

All this happened before the U.S. invasion of Dec. 2001.  Since then, the U.N. estimates 80% of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are attributable to the Taliban.  There's nothing positive about its struggle to return to power.  If the Taliban succeeded in driving out the U.S., it would only create a government far worse than one than now exists.

Evil

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Evil,

Not gonna enter a long debate, simply because I am not interested.

Just a quick few points :

- Le maquis was more in the rural areas, Resistance tactics in cities was a bit different. Resistance have been accused (partly rightly so) of killing Germans in order for Germans to retaliate by mass executions of innocent civilians and thereby create a movement to rally the "undecided" to the resistance. Its a tactic regulary used everywhere.

- Remember the US strongly supported the Taliban (Mujahideen) when they fought the Russians, even supplying them A.A. missiles to down helicopters. And later launched a big "buy back" campaign when realising the danger aftdr the Russians left. US has a big role in the creation of those Taliban movements, who later ran out of control and fought the US. Several books on the subject. If digging deep there is a natural evolution from there to DAESH.

- The tribal / ethnic difference go back a long way, one of the reasons being the artificial borders decided by the West long time ago without respect of tribes. Similar in Africa.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553&ved=2ahUKEwjLp_vUlJ7mAhXJfn0KHd9KC0AQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2CgjQSBbssopBwAr8QDhv7

And if you have a look at the history of Islam, the tribe issue was already present way before that.

What the West recently did is to have the tribes temporary stick together against the common ennemy, the invader.(remember Lawrence of Arabia ?) Later of course they'll start again among themselves. Libanon, Syria, Libya etc... 

Word of the end : If the US had kept their hands out of the M.E. we would not have the actual mess !. Same for France who was at the helm to top Khadafi. Libya was a dictatorship, but stable. Look at it now. 

The subject.is too vast to be discussed by writing on a forum, but the West has a HUGE responsability in destabilizing the whole area.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...