[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;4649]

Have ANY released prisoners from that gulag had this desire?

Obviously I can't answer that; have any participated in terrorist activities , no as far as I know

But we're talking about POWs. I somehow doubt that after someone (especially an innocent person) is released, that they'd do stuff to get themselves sent back there again.

Well you do surprise me, prisons are full of repeat offenders and lets remember, so called, Islamic terrorist are happy to die if it enables them to kill

Suspicion isn't justified on their behavior, nor is it really based on it. The suspicion here is more based on who they are, not really what they were doing, and I don't agree with that

You are still missing the point, I do not seek to punish these men, however having said that, they are not British citizen and do not as I understand have a right to return and live here, so why should we take the risk, when there are people with back grounds of behaviour, which are totally non questionable and far more deserving. Perhaps the USA has obligations if their imprisonment was not justified.

We have a right to chose

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Obviously I can't answer that; have any participated in terrorist activities , no as far as I know

Exactly. They don't. What they do, is tell everyone about their horrid experience there, and worsen the gulag's already-bad reputation. That's what they always do. Even the author of the article recognized that.

Well you do surprise me, prisons are full of repeat offenders and lets remember, so called, Islamic terrorist are happy to die if it enables them to kill

But we aren't talking about common criminals and normal prisons. We're talking about POWs imprisoned in a gulag, and how they react, once they're released. POWs are different from common criminals.

You are still missing the point, I do not seek to punish these men, however having said that, they are not British citizen and do not as I understand have a right to return and live here, so why should we take the risk, when there are people with back grounds of behaviour, which are totally non questionable and far more deserving. Perhaps the USA has obligations if their imprisonment was not justified.

We have a right to chose

Not to the detriment of others, who are entitled to that same right.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;4662]Exactly. .

That's what they always do.

Lets remember that this is a first, re British only residents to be considered for return, " they always" is not a guarantee that all will always.,Why should the UK take chances, theses guys are not entitled to residence

But we aren't talking about common criminals and normal prisons. We're talking about POWs imprisoned in a gulag, and how they react, once they're released. POWs are different from common criminals.

Imprisonment is Imprisonment, they have never been POW's

Not to the detriment of others, who are entitled to that same right

They do not have the right of residence, it is a privialge that the Uk can refuse

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Lets remember that this is a first, re British only residents to be considered for return, " they always" is not a guarantee that all will always.,Why should the UK take chances, theses guys are not entitled to residence

Yes, but even if they had a desire for revenge, then it would be directed at the US, seeing as they were the ones who captured and imprisoned them.

Everyone is entitled to the benefit of a doubt. Thus far, the only case I have seen against them (between you and the author), is one of paranoia and fear-mongering, and should not be considered when examining them.

Imprisonment is Imprisonment, they have never been POW's

How are they not POWs?

They do not have the right of residence, it is a privialge that the Uk can refuse

Well apparently, the UK has not refused it (and even going as far as to demand it), so that means they are entitled to it.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu;4936[QUOTE

]Yes, but even if they had a desire for revenge, then it would be directed at the US, seeing as they were the ones who captured and imprisoned them.

Well maybe but there is a tendency to lump the UK in with the US ie the West

Everyone is entitled to the benefit of a doubt. .

Benefit of the doubt is not prohibitive of taking appropriate safeguards, which might take the form of security watch, or even refusal of residence . A Governments first duty is to it's citizen, not visitors, or would be returning visitors

Thus far, the only case I have seen against them (between you and the author), is one of paranoia and fear-mongering, and should not be considered when examining them

Guantanamo Five could be 'a terrorist threat to Britain' | the Daily Mail

How are they not POWs?

It's more a case of why do you claim they are POW's,however i will accomodate you:

The USA does not reconise them as POW.

The prisoners do not claim to be part of a military force or to be taking part in a war, remember they were "Happy Holiday Makers" and what a choice for their vacation, Wow

Well apparently, the UK has not refused it (and even going as far as to demand it), so that means they are entitled to it.

This is weak even for you; the Uk is looking into their release , they have not demanded it, The UK is considering whether they should be allowed, if released, be allowed to reside in the UK. what ever the outcome this does not establish a right

Kaminyu , you desperately need a few Red Herrings, what about claiming that they are MI5 agents, I'm sure you could find one of your trash Web pages to support it

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Well maybe but there is a tendency to lump the UK in with the US ie the West

Not in every context, and certainly not in this one.

Benefit of the doubt is not prohibitive of taking appropriate safeguards, which might take the form of security watch, or even refusal of residence . A Governments first duty is to it's citizen, not visitors, or would be returning visitors

However, a government has no duty to respond positively to paranoia and fear-mongering from anyone.

Guantanamo Five could be 'a terrorist threat to Britain' | the Daily Mail

More of the same, only now with the feature of unsubstantiated claims.

It's more a case of why do you claim they are POW's,however i will accomodate you:

The USA does not reconise them as POW.

The prisoners do not claim to be part of a military force or to be taking part in a war, remember they were "Happy Holiday Makers" and what a choice for their vacation, Wow

And what do you call civilians or non-combatants that are imprisoned in war?

This is weak even for you; the Uk is looking into their release , they have not demanded it, The UK is considering whether they should be allowed, if released, be allowed to reside in the UK. what ever the outcome this does not establish a right

I guess "demand" was too strong a word? Okay then, they "asked" for their release. If they determine that they should be allowed to reside in the UK, and don't find any of these safeguards necessary, then is it not the right of the individuals in question to accept this?

Kaminyu , you desperately need a few Red Herrings, what about claiming that they are MI5 agents, I'm sure you could find one of your trash Web pages to support it

I don't have trash webpages like you do, robutt-troll. Are you trying to goad me into bringing these "red herrings" up? Well too bad, because unlike that MI-5 terrorist mastermind; Abu Qatada, these individuals don't seem to have any connection to the MI-5 or MI-6. Also, those who are associated with intel agencies, are the ones involved in terrorism, not those that are just captured and imprisoned randomly.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;5106]

Not in every context, and certainly not in this one.

Why not in this one?

However, a government has no duty to respond positively to paranoia and fear-mongering from anyone.

Well I wish all the trouble we are having around the world due to Islamic extremist and would be terrorist was nothing more than paranoia and fear-mongering

More of the same, only now with the feature of unsubstantiated claims.

Of coarse it's all made up,sure

And what do you call civilians or non-combatants that are imprisoned in war?

Internees

I guess "demand" was too strong a word? Okay then, they "asked" for their release. If they determine that they should be allowed to reside in the UK, and don't find any of these safeguards necessary, then is it not the right of the individuals in question to accept this?

How slippery can you get, the right under discussion was the right of residence, not the obvious right of acceptance if offered; really Kaminyu old chap this simply isn't cricket

I don't have trash webpages like you do, robutt-troll. Are you trying to goad me into bringing these "red herrings" up? Well too bad, because unlike that MI-5 terrorist mastermind; Abu Qatada, these individuals don't seem to have any connection to the MI-5 or MI-6. Also, those who are associated with intel agencies, are the ones involved in terrorism, not those that are just captured and imprisoned randomly.

Tut tut, robutt-troll indeed

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Why not in this one?

Because, in this case, the UK is the one seeking their release.

Well I wish all the trouble we are having around the world due to Islamic extremist and would be terrorist was nothing more than paranoia and fear-mongering

It is nothing more than that, since the only reason there's "trouble", is because the "west" screws around with other people and their countries.

Of coarse it's all made up,sure

It's unsubstantiated. You like to demand other people's claims be substantiated, but you get defensive when people demand the same thing of you.

Internees

I've never heard that term used before. I call them POWs.

How slippery can you get, the right under discussion was the right of residence, not the obvious right of acceptance if offered; really Kaminyu old chap this simply isn't cricket

No, this discussion was about their right of residence, if they were given that option. If they were given that option, then they are entitled to it, and therefore, have the right of residence, and these "safeguards" are unnecessary, unless they've actually done something (which of course they haven't).

Tut tut, robutt-troll indeed

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;5475]

Because, in this case, the UK is the one seeking their release.

We have already agreed that for some their is no such thing as loyalty to the UK it's all about the West and the real or imaginary attacks on Muslims world wide, why do you think on the basis of polls thousands of Muslims enjoying the hospitality of the UK support terrorist attacks on the uk

It is nothing more than that, since the only reason there's "trouble", is because the "west" screws around with other people and their countries.

Sure and what about violence in areas where the West is not involved, it's time you faced up to the reality of extremist Islamic violence and brutally, but maybe you just can't do that

I've never heard that term used before. I call them POWs.

How very convenient and I suppose you have never heard of internment

No, this discussion was about their right of residence, if they were given that option. If they were given that option, then they are entitled to it, and therefore, have the right of residence, and these "safeguards" are unnecessary, unless they've actually done something (which of course they haven't).

Utter rubbish, your saying that if some one does another person a favour it becomes a right .

Kaminyu, please try to be sensible, accept the fact that the UK has a right to either allow these people residence with adequate safe guards, or to refuse. It matters not what you think it is the UK right of decision

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

We have already agreed that for some their is no such thing as loyalty to the UK it's all about the West and the real or imaginary attacks on Muslims world wide, why do you think on the basis of polls thousands of Muslims enjoying the hospitality of the UK support terrorist attacks on the uk

Well, obviously, because they aren't "enjoying" the "hospitality of the UK" enough. What's there to enjoy about being stigmatized in your own country?

Sure and what about violence in areas where the West is not involved, it's time you faced up to the reality of extremist Islamic violence and brutally, but maybe you just can't do that

Violence where the West is not involved? Where's that? The West is involved virtually EVERYWHERE, or has been at some point.

How very convenient and I suppose you have never heard of internment

Of course I've heard of internment. I just didn't know they referred to prisoners during a time of war, as anything besides POWs. POWs can be "internees" as well. However, the definition of "enemy combatants" in the context of today's world, has been broadened to the point where POWs and internees start to become synonymous with each other.

Utter rubbish, your saying that if some one does another person a favour it becomes a right .

Kaminyu, please try to be sensible, accept the fact that the UK has a right to either allow these people residence with adequate safe guards, or to refuse. It matters not what you think it is the UK right of decision

It becomes their right to accept that favor that is offerered, and no one has the right to deny it to them, if it has already been offered. What's so difficult to understand about that?

If person A offers person B a favor, then person C has no business to deny that favor to person B, simply based on paranoia and fear-mongering.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;5776]

Well, obviously, because they aren't "enjoying" the "hospitality of the UK" enough. What's there to enjoy about being stigmatized in your own country?

So you consider that if one feels that the hospitality is not 100% then it's okay to kill fellow citizens

Of course I've heard of internment. I just didn't know they referred to prisoners during a time of war, as anything besides POWs. POWs can be "internees" as well. However, the definition of "enemy combatants" in the context of today's world, has been broadened to the point where POWs and internees start to become synonymous with each other.

Really, Kaminyu what a sad attempt to wriggle out of this one,

It becomes their right to accept that favor that is offerered, and no one has the right to deny it to them, if it has already been offered. What's so difficult to understand about that?

If person A offers person B a favor, then person C has no business to deny that favor to person B, simply based on paranoia and fear-mongering

The "right" you refer to is not the one which you originally expressed, which was the absolute "right" of the detainees of residence in the UK

Your post on this thread are becoming more and more devious to the point that is utterly ridiculous and the sad thing is you cannot help it.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

So you consider that if one feels that the hospitality is not 100% then it's okay to kill fellow citizens

Don't change the subject. We're talking about how they feel, not how I feel.

When you say "kill fellow citizens" are you referring to the 7/7 attacks? If so, those are the work of the MI-5 and the Mossad, and therefore, it isn't a valid point against them.

Really, Kaminyu what a sad attempt to wriggle out of this one,

I don't need to wriggle out of anything. You're just being unnecessarily nit-picky about terminology and semantics, with "POW"s and "internees", when both, at the end of the day, are still prisoners taken during a time of war.

The "right" you refer to is not the one which you originally expressed, which was the absolute "right" of the detainees of residence in the UK

No, that actually was my original point. You just misunderstood it.

Your post on this thread are becoming more and more devious to the point that is utterly ridiculous and the sad thing is you cannot help it.

Just because you can't understand what I'm trying to say, doesn't mean that I'm devious. It just means that you have (as I've said so many times before) poor comprehension skills.