On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:27:37 +0000, Ron(UK) wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:


Hyacinth Bucket's show was filmed in and around my town ...

It's Bouquet!


You are Richard Bucket and I claim my five pounds!

Ron(UK)


"mind the Pedestrian"
"WHERE?!"
"On the pavement, dear."
"Isn't that where a pedestrian is supposed to be?"
"Well, he may step off!"



"You're in a good mood!"
"and why not. It's been an entire week without a bucket!"
"What kind of bucket?"
"The dreaded Bucket!"
"Oh, THAT Bucket."

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:arAfj.61$tZ6.11@trndny03...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:27:37 +0000, Ron(UK) wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:


Hyacinth Bucket's show was filmed in and around my town ...

It's Bouquet!


You are Richard Bucket and I claim my five pounds!

Ron(UK)


"mind the Pedestrian"
"WHERE?!"
"On the pavement, dear."
"Isn't that where a pedestrian is supposed to be?"
"Well, he may step off!"

Poor, poor Richard... Never should've taken early retirement!

"You're in a good mood!"
"and why not. It's been an entire week without a bucket!"
"What kind of bucket?"
"The dreaded Bucket!"
"Oh, THAT Bucket."

Was this the vicar & his wife or Elizabeth & her brother (whose name is
eluding me)?

Cathy

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:qoAfj.60$tZ6.33@trndny03...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:51:25 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:aGdfj.11830$cq5.6792@trndny06...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:30:56 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



"dbu." wrote:

Habeas Corpus is not suspended, goofy.

It is (in the USA) if THEY decide you're a terrorist. No proof required
whatever.

Graham


That's OK. No Problem. Since a LOT of the people they have incarcerated
for terrorism ARE terrorists!

Take the case of Dave Whatever from Austrailia. Wrote a letter to his
Mum saying he would fight, kill and die for the 'cause'. The cause was
Jihad. The tactics of the Muslims is terrorism. They jailed him at
Guantanamo, then moved him to a prison in Austrailia. He was released
last week after 6 years.

Should have kept him at Guantanamo...



This is actually a tricky one, where a country has a fundamental
principle
of freedom of speech. It's a big step from someone voicing Walter Mitty
delusions of being a terrorist, to actually being one. Just in the last
few weeks, a young girl has been jailed here in the UK under the
prevention of terrorism act, for writing delusional poems about being a
terrorist. Interestingly, she was employed in a shop at Heathrow Airport
... I don't think that it was a particuarly clever thing to do, but you
have to ask yourself exactly what crime she has committed, in a country
where people supposedly have a right to say what they like, and hold
whatever opinions they like. There is a lot of double standards like this
creeping in now. Had this girl have been a character in a TV show, say,
would the writer of that show have been guilty of the same offence that
she was, for coming up with the poems, writing them down, giving them as
a
script to a credible actor, and then getting them broadcast on public
television?

There are now huge issues here with voicing any negative opinions in
public about anyone being gay, or about anyone's race or colour or most
any other characteristic, but it is fine to do so as part of a 'make
believe' television production. Why is it so hugely offensive for these
people to have negative comments made about them in reality, but
apparently not when it's done in the TV world of make believe ?

Arresting and incarcerating people for talking like a terrorist, without
any proof that they are actually a terrorist, is drifting towards a
dangerous situation of a totalitarian state, complete with thought police
...

Arfa


Hmmmm...this is all very true.

Here in the states people (a few HS/College kids mostly) have been
investigated for writing stories about Columbine-type killings. But not
jailed.

The problem results from not knowing who your enemy is. In wars of old, We
wore one uniform, They wore another. Warfare has changed since Vietnam,
and especially in dealing with the terrorists. Do we err on the side of
Human Rights, and take a chance, or do we err on the side of caution and
jail them in an effort to find out where they really stand?

After 9/11 and July 2005 in the UK, I'm all in favor of sending them to
Guantanamo until their true colors show.

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a lot
more than we have been wrong.

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.



I take your points absolutely. Trust me when i tell you that I am not a
blanket 'human rights' merchant. The Human Rights Act is enshrined in
European Law now, and there are vast numbers of lawyers specialising in, and
making obscene amounts of money from human rights cases that are, in my
opinion, nothing short of fraudulent if not in point of law, then certainly
in the spirit of it. Criminals now have more rights than their victims, and
woe betide the copper who violates those rights. As far as I am concerned,
if you choose to be a criminal, then all of your 'special' rights should be
suspended. If you slash yourself to pieces trying to climb over a glass
topped wall, then that's your fault, and not that of the person who put it
there to defend their property against dirty little scrotes trying to break
in to get their drug money. Same as when you are convicted and sent to jail.
Your only human rights should be to be treated as a human being - fed,
housed, kept warm, and given medical treatment if required. You should not
have the right to television, religious segregation, endless visits and so
on, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act, they seem to get all of
these things and more.

BUT, I really do believe that there has to be some kind of restaint in law
to prevent *real* violations of human rights. All sorts of laws have been
rushed through on both sides of the Atlantic to aid the 'war on terror', and
doubtless, when correctly applied, have some measure of success against the
genuinely bad people. I don't have too much of a problem with 'torture' of
the non-permanent variety, being used against the genuinely bad. What I do
have a problem with, is when the laws are used as a 'blunt instrument', as
appears to have been the case with *some* Guantanamo internees, who have
been held on nothing more than suspicion. Some of those have been British
citizens, and have been eventually released, but seem to have been the
subjects of the 'persuasion' methods that you detailed, for some
considerable time before their release. During their incarceration, they
make claims of being prevented from having any kind of contact with proper
legal representaion. Now that seems to me to be collectively, a *genuine*
breach of human rights, and if we pursue that route rigidly, with no
exceptions and no mitigations, then we run the risk of losing our freedom
and democracy, and becoming a totalitarian state, which Iraq pretty much was
before the western efforts to 'liberate' it, and restore the freedoms and
human rights that it once had. Now is this an example of double standards,
perhaps ? We really can't have it both ways ...

It *is* a very tricky situation, no matter how you look at it. On the one
hand, a government has the responsibility to protect the people it governs,
but on the other, it must stand up for the fundamental principles on which
the country's heritage and laws are built. In the case of western
democracies, a keystone in this respect, is freedoms of speech and actions,
and an expectation that the country's laws will be applied to all with equal
rigour. To date, I don't think we have got that balance quite right.

Arfa

"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a lot
more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih nationality
have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being in the wrong place
at the wrong time only.

Graham

"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced **** !

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a lot
more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality
have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being in the wrong
place
at the wrong time only.

Graham


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't have been
and got caught.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced **** !

Graham



You ****ing idiot. Terrorists, insurgents, Al Queda and other barbarians
have killed or injured far more Iraqis than the COALITION have.

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a lot
more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being in
the wrong
place at the wrong time only.


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't have been
and got caught.

I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of course they
had no way of telling if the information was true. So the locals saw this as a
neat way of making money by 'informing' on random non-Afghan nationals. It was a
system bound to be abused.

Graham

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced **** !

You ****ing idiot. Terrorists, insurgents, Al Queda and other barbarians
have killed or injured far more Iraqis than the COALITION have.

Simply untrue.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a
lot
more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being
in
the wrong
place at the wrong time only.


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't have
been
and got caught.

I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of course
they
had no way of telling if the information was true. So the locals saw this
as a
neat way of making money by 'informing' on random non-Afghan nationals. It
was a
system bound to be abused.

Graham


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take lessons
from LIEbrawls?

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia, etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been
correct so far a
lot more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being
in the wrong place at the wrong time only.


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't have
been and got caught.

I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of course
they had no way of telling if the information was true. So the locals saw
this
as a neat way of making money by 'informing' on random non-Afghan nationals.
It
was a system bound to be abused.


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take lessons
from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released if they
were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't belong in a
civilised society.

I imagine you're pro illegal-phone-tap and pro suspension of habeas corpus (for
suspects!) too ?

Yes, Bush and his criminal friends are destroying what was once a proudly
democratic society.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia, etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been
correct so far a
lot more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of
being
in the wrong place at the wrong time only.


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't
have
been and got caught.

I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of
course
they had no way of telling if the information was true. So the locals
saw
this
as a neat way of making money by 'informing' on random non-Afghan
nationals.
It
was a system bound to be abused.


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take
lessons
from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released if
they
were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't belong
in a
civilised society.

I imagine you're pro illegal-phone-tap and pro suspension of habeas corpus
(for
suspects!) too ?

Yes, Bush and his criminal friends are destroying what was once a proudly
democratic society.

Graham


It's you LIEbrawl bull**** artists who get into bed with the terrorists at
every conceivable opportunity who are truly responsible. Grow some
spine...and brain, eh!

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia, etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been
correct so far a lot more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of
being in the wrong place at the wrong time only.


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't
have been and got caught.

I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of
course they had no way of telling if the information was true. So the
locals
saw this as a neat way of making money by 'informing' on random
non-Afghan
nationals.
It was a system bound to be abused.


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take
lessons from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released if
they were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't belong
in a civilised society.

I imagine you're pro illegal-phone-tap and pro suspension of habeas corpus
(for suspects!) too ?

Yes, Bush and his criminal friends are destroying what was once a proudly
democratic society.


It's you LIEbrawl bull**** artists who get into bed with the terrorists at
every conceivable opportunity who are truly responsible. Grow some
spine...and brain, eh!

Suspending the constitution (and ignoring the rule of law) is 'having a spine'
is it ? What are you afraid of ? 'Reds under the bed' ? Bwahahaahahaa !

What a ****wit ! I suppose you'd bring back McCarthy too when you could destroy
someone merely by pointing a finger of suspicion. It's not unlike what could
happen in Stalin's USSR.

Why don't you be honest and admit you'd rather have a dictatorship over a
democracy ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia, etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact
been
correct so far a lot more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of
being in the wrong place at the wrong time only.


Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't
have been and got caught.

I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of
course they had no way of telling if the information was true. So
the
locals
saw this as a neat way of making money by 'informing' on random
non-Afghan
nationals.
It was a system bound to be abused.


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take
lessons from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released
if
they were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't
belong
in a civilised society.

I imagine you're pro illegal-phone-tap and pro suspension of habeas
corpus
(for suspects!) too ?

Yes, Bush and his criminal friends are destroying what was once a
proudly
democratic society.


It's you LIEbrawl bull**** artists who get into bed with the terrorists
at
every conceivable opportunity who are truly responsible. Grow some
spine...and brain, eh!

Suspending the constitution (and ignoring the rule of law) is 'having a
spine'
is it ? What are you afraid of ? 'Reds under the bed' ? Bwahahaahahaa !

What a ****wit ! I suppose you'd bring back McCarthy too when you could
destroy
someone merely by pointing a finger of suspicion. It's not unlike what
could
happen in Stalin's USSR.

Why don't you be honest and admit you'd rather have a dictatorship over a
democracy ?

Graham

You LIEbrawls seldom criticize any of various and sundry dictatorships in
South America, Asia or Africa.

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Why don't you be honest and admit you'd rather have a dictatorship over a
democracy ?

You LIEbrawls seldom criticize any of various and sundry dictatorships in
South America, Asia or Africa.

I'm critical of ANY dictatorship. Which dictatorships did you have in mind in S
America btw ? Don't forget the former US backed Chilean dictator Pinochet btw.
The US has a track record of being friendly to dictators. Especially the
political Right in the USA. And of course the USA is supporting the unelected
effective dictator of Pakistan Gen Pervez Musharraf.

Why do you want the USA to be as bad as they are ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia, etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been
correct so far a
lot more than we have been wrong.
I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being
in the wrong place at the wrong time only.

Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't have
been and got caught.
I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of course
they had no way of telling if the information was true. So the locals saw
this
as a neat way of making money by 'informing' on random non-Afghan nationals.
It
was a system bound to be abused.

Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take lessons
from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released if they
were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't belong in a
civilised society.

I imagine you're pro illegal-phone-tap and pro suspension of habeas corpus (for
suspects!) too ?

Yes, Bush and his criminal friends are destroying what was once a proudly
democratic society.

Graham

Graham...if you don't need this tripe, just take alt.autos.toyota out of
your xpost. This sort of crap makes up the majority of the posts there....

jak

sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
sharx35 wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation,
hypothermia, etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact
been
correct so far a lot more than we have been wrong.
I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of
being in the wrong place at the wrong time only.

Just like many criminals--just happened to be where they shouldn't
have been and got caught.
I gather that the USA was paying locals to 'inform' on Al Qaeda. Of
course they had no way of telling if the information was true. So
the
locals
saw this as a neat way of making money by 'informing' on random
non-Afghan
nationals.
It was a system bound to be abused.


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take
lessons from LIEbrawls?
Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released
if
they were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't
belong
in a civilised society.

I imagine you're pro illegal-phone-tap and pro suspension of habeas
corpus
(for suspects!) too ?

Yes, Bush and his criminal friends are destroying what was once a
proudly
democratic society.

It's you LIEbrawl bull**** artists who get into bed with the terrorists
at
every conceivable opportunity who are truly responsible. Grow some
spine...and brain, eh!
Suspending the constitution (and ignoring the rule of law) is 'having a
spine'
is it ? What are you afraid of ? 'Reds under the bed' ? Bwahahaahahaa !

What a ****wit ! I suppose you'd bring back McCarthy too when you could
destroy
someone merely by pointing a finger of suspicion. It's not unlike what
could
happen in Stalin's USSR.

Why don't you be honest and admit you'd rather have a dictatorship over a
democracy ?

Graham

You LIEbrawls seldom criticize any of various and sundry dictatorships in
South America, Asia or Africa.


Welcome to alt.autos.toyota, where they sometimes talk about cars....

jak

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:37:51 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced **** !

Graham

That was represented when we took out Saddam Heussein, who killed more
Iraqi civilians than 3 Iraq wars could possibly even come close to killing.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:48:41 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the
mere fact that they will take themselves out with their victims,
believing it is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced ****
!

You ****ing idiot. Terrorists, insurgents, Al Queda and other barbarians
have killed or injured far more Iraqis than the COALITION have.

Simply untrue.

Graham

Even the BBC admits that.

Calling the BBC a liar?

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:36:57 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a
lot more than we have been wrong.

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being in
the wrong place at the wrong time only.

Graham


Close enough for government work. Rather have them there than plotting
against wither the US or the UK.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:46:41 +0000, Eeyore wrote:


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take
lessons from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released if
they were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't belong
in a civilised society.


But it's not just the US. The UK sends people to Gitmo. Australia sends
people to Gitmo. Afghanis send people to Gitmo. It isn't just the US
rounding these people up.

Sorry to say this, but you sound like a typical UK Liberal: don't like
something, blame it on the US.

There are plenty of other people to blame other than us, we're just
convenient because we're the only SuperPower left in the world, and
everyone loves to hate the US anyway.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:42:52 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:qoAfj.60$tZ6.33@trndny03...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:51:25 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:aGdfj.11830$cq5.6792@trndny06...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:30:56 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



"dbu." wrote:

Habeas Corpus is not suspended, goofy.

It is (in the USA) if THEY decide you're a terrorist. No proof
required whatever.

Graham


That's OK. No Problem. Since a LOT of the people they have
incarcerated for terrorism ARE terrorists!

Take the case of Dave Whatever from Austrailia. Wrote a letter to his
Mum saying he would fight, kill and die for the 'cause'. The cause was
Jihad. The tactics of the Muslims is terrorism. They jailed him at
Guantanamo, then moved him to a prison in Austrailia. He was released
last week after 6 years.

Should have kept him at Guantanamo...



This is actually a tricky one, where a country has a fundamental
principle
of freedom of speech. It's a big step from someone voicing Walter Mitty
delusions of being a terrorist, to actually being one. Just in the last
few weeks, a young girl has been jailed here in the UK under the
prevention of terrorism act, for writing delusional poems about being a
terrorist. Interestingly, she was employed in a shop at Heathrow
Airport ... I don't think that it was a particuarly clever thing to
do, but you have to ask yourself exactly what crime she has committed,
in a country where people supposedly have a right to say what they
like, and hold whatever opinions they like. There is a lot of double
standards like this creeping in now. Had this girl have been a
character in a TV show, say, would the writer of that show have been
guilty of the same offence that she was, for coming up with the poems,
writing them down, giving them as a
script to a credible actor, and then getting them broadcast on public
television?

There are now huge issues here with voicing any negative opinions in
public about anyone being gay, or about anyone's race or colour or most
any other characteristic, but it is fine to do so as part of a 'make
believe' television production. Why is it so hugely offensive for these
people to have negative comments made about them in reality, but
apparently not when it's done in the TV world of make believe ?

Arresting and incarcerating people for talking like a terrorist,
without any proof that they are actually a terrorist, is drifting
towards a dangerous situation of a totalitarian state, complete with
thought police ...

Arfa


Hmmmm...this is all very true.

Here in the states people (a few HS/College kids mostly) have been
investigated for writing stories about Columbine-type killings. But not
jailed.

The problem results from not knowing who your enemy is. In wars of old,
We wore one uniform, They wore another. Warfare has changed since
Vietnam, and especially in dealing with the terrorists. Do we err on the
side of Human Rights, and take a chance, or do we err on the side of
caution and jail them in an effort to find out where they really stand?

After 9/11 and July 2005 in the UK, I'm all in favor of sending them to
Guantanamo until their true colors show.

And, as far as 'torture' (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia,
etc) it has been borne out that we have in fact been correct so far a
lot more than we have been wrong.

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the mere
fact that they will take themselves out with their victims, believing it
is the Will of Allah.



I take your points absolutely. Trust me when i tell you that I am not a
blanket 'human rights' merchant. The Human Rights Act is enshrined in
European Law now, and there are vast numbers of lawyers specialising in,
and making obscene amounts of money from human rights cases that are, in
my opinion, nothing short of fraudulent if not in point of law, then
certainly in the spirit of it. Criminals now have more rights than their
victims, and woe betide the copper who violates those rights. As far as I
am concerned, if you choose to be a criminal, then all of your 'special'
rights should be suspended. If you slash yourself to pieces trying to
climb over a glass topped wall, then that's your fault, and not that of
the person who put it there to defend their property against dirty little
scrotes trying to break in to get their drug money.


Well said. Too many times the criminal has more rights than the victim.
Someone with a brain really needs to look at this one.


Same as when you are
convicted and sent to jail. Your only human rights should be to be treated
as a human being - fed, housed, kept warm, and given medical treatment if
required. You should not have the right to television, religious
segregation, endless visits and so on, but under the terms of the Human
Rights Act, they seem to get all of these things and more.

I spent some time in a US Federal prison and I actually disagree with
this. On a number of levels. There are some who, if not distracted
somehow, will turn their thoughts towards their next crime when they are
released. Now, perhaps the Federal system gets a higher caliber of
criminal (?!) but I saw as many people watching History and Discovery
perhaps even more than "Must See TV".

Also arts and crafts should not be thrown away. I myself did something I
hadn't done for 20 years: I picked up a bass guitar, and haven't put it
down since. I relearned how to make and keep friends, both with music and
without. I occupy my time with worthwhile pursuits rather than things
which may lead to trouble (I wasn't a 'badass' to begin with, but this
does apply to others as well). There was a leather shop at the place I
was; you should have SEEN some of the work that was done there. You did
have to pay for your own materials, but someof this stuff was AMAZING!

No, I believe there should be ways for people to maintain some semblance
of a normal life, so they have an easier time getting back to the GOOD
things in life and minimizing the negative aspects that got them there in
the first place.


BUT, I really do believe that there has to be some kind of restaint in law
to prevent *real* violations of human rights. All sorts of laws have been
rushed through on both sides of the Atlantic to aid the 'war on terror',
and doubtless, when correctly applied, have some measure of success
against the genuinely bad people. I don't have too much of a problem with
'torture' of the non-permanent variety, being used against the genuinely
bad. What I do have a problem with, is when the laws are used as a 'blunt
instrument', as appears to have been the case with *some* Guantanamo
internees, who have been held on nothing more than suspicion. Some of
those have been British citizens, and have been eventually released, but
seem to have been the subjects of the 'persuasion' methods that you
detailed, for some considerable time before their release. During their
incarceration, they make claims of being prevented from having any kind of
contact with proper legal representaion. Now that seems to me to be
collectively, a *genuine* breach of human rights, and if we pursue that
route rigidly, with no exceptions and no mitigations, then we run the risk
of losing our freedom and democracy, and becoming a totalitarian state,
which Iraq pretty much was before the western efforts to 'liberate' it,
and restore the freedoms and human rights that it once had. Now is this an
example of double standards, perhaps ? We really can't have it both ways
...

The problem here is that it is basically taking POWs. So, as someone said,
Habeus Corpus is sort of out the window. For the people who were detained
for reasons of terrorism or acts of war, they are basically under Military
law and really only have to be held in accordance with the Geneva
Convention. This is where a lot of the criticism of Guantanamo falls on
it's face. Yeah, it's a US Federal prison, but it is a MILITARY prison and
not civilian. Entirely different set of rules.

I'm guessing you're from the UK? My very own Ultra Liberal Senator, Edward
Kennedy, D-MASS in 2005 talked for WEEKS AND WEEKS about the atrocities at
Guantanamo; after about three months he and two other overly-vociferous
members of the US Congress took a weekend trip to Gitmo.

The funny thing was, after their return on Tuesday, they uttered not ONE
MORE WORD about the subject! Like a door had been slammed shut. I can
only guess they were afraid to report what they had found there for fear
of making themselves look like fools for all the rhetoric they slung
around beforehand. Even a "Hey, we were wrong, this is what we found..."
would have been nice, but being Democrats 'against' a Republican Pres,
they couldn't.




It *is* a very tricky situation, no matter how you look at it. On the one
hand, a government has the responsibility to protect the people it
governs, but on the other, it must stand up for the fundamental principles
on which the country's heritage and laws are built. In the case of western
democracies, a keystone in this respect, is freedoms of speech and
actions, and an expectation that the country's laws will be applied to all
with equal rigour. To date, I don't think we have got that balance quite
right.

Arfa


As I said, I am all for erring on the side of caution, and maybe imprison
someone who is innocent, rather than make the mistake of turning someone
loose who may loose a Dirty Bomb on my kids. Tough call, indeed, since *I*
myself would not want to be held for nothing, but the War was declared by
the Islamists (as a "Jihad" against the "Infidels") and the devastation of
9/11 was worse in terms of loss of life than Pearl Harbor.

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:jCdfj.11828$cq5.5974@trndny06...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:08:34 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The cops come to your house today. They push their ways past you and
begin
searching your house without a warrant. They don't ask permission to
search. What would be your thoughts on this?


That's just a slight bit different.


No, it's not. You're an idiot. Please kill yourself. Let me know if you
need help.


Here's the problem, since it seems to go right over your head: the
Internet, basically, is a Public utility. If you, or Meathead really has
that much trouble with monitoring, go elsewhere. Get on a private forum.
Rem3ember the old BBS systems?

I certainly do! They were invariably run by control freaks.







Yeah, I'd have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with them monitoring me trying to tell you why
it's not a bad thing.


That last sentence needs to be rewritten when you are sober. 2009, maybe?

Here, let's try so even you can understand. It's not a bad thing. What's
the problem?

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:twVfj.4674$%A6.3306@trndny08...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:48:41 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the
mere fact that they will take themselves out with their victims,
believing it is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced ****
!

You ****ing idiot. Terrorists, insurgents, Al Queda and other barbarians
have killed or injured far more Iraqis than the COALITION have.

Simply untrue.

Graham

Even the BBC admits that.

Calling the BBC a liar?

****ing rights I am. BBC is now full of brainless left-wing LIEbrawl
'droids. Ditto for Reuters, Al Jazeerah, PBS, NPR and my countries
LIEbrawl/NDP dominated Canadian Broadcorping Castration. (CBC).

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:tr_fj.26131$wy2.200@edtnps90...

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:twVfj.4674$%A6.3306@trndny08...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:48:41 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the
mere fact that they will take themselves out with their victims,
believing it is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced
****
!

You ****ing idiot. Terrorists, insurgents, Al Queda and other
barbarians
have killed or injured far more Iraqis than the COALITION have.

Simply untrue.

Graham

Even the BBC admits that.

Calling the BBC a liar?

****ing rights I am. BBC is now full of brainless left-wing LIEbrawl
'droids. Ditto for Reuters, Al Jazeerah, PBS, NPR and my countries
LIEbrawl/NDP dominated Canadian Broadcorping Castration. (CBC).

Most of the time BBC journalists slag the U.S.. It's VERY rarely that you
see any NON-yellow journalism on the BBC when it comes to Iraq.

snipped to reduce post length

As I said, I am all for erring on the side of caution, and maybe imprison
someone who is innocent, rather than make the mistake of turning someone
loose who may loose a Dirty Bomb on my kids. Tough call, indeed, since *I*
myself would not want to be held for nothing, but the War was declared by
the Islamists (as a "Jihad" against the "Infidels") and the devastation of
9/11 was worse in terms of loss of life than Pearl Harbor.



Hmmm. A lot of highly contentious points there, I think. We might be talking
'apples and oranges' with your prisons, and ours (yes, you are correct, I am
English, or "British" if that makes more sense to you ... another issue ...)
I have seen many TV programmes about US jails, which may or may not be
totally factual, but the overwhelming impression given, is that they are, on
the whole, hard places, where the inmates are left in no doubt about the
fact that they are there as a punishment. We too used to have such a prison
system, but in recent years, it has declined in severity to the point where
many prisons are now seen as a 'home away from home' - allbeit one that you
can't leave - by many career criminals. This has led to huge amounts of
reoffending and recidivism. I am not against prisoners having their time
made use of, nor of them being paid for doing work which is ultimately of
use to the community that they offended against. I don't have a problem with
them earning privileges such as TV time and extra visits. I don't have a
problem with offenders learning new skills that may help them when they are
released. What I do have a problem with is the way these things have now
become 'rights' rather than 'earnings' as a result of human rights
legislation. Prisoners now, in large part, have a right, set in law, to be
treated as though they were still on the outside, instead of banged up to be
punished for what are often highly uncivilsed an IN - humane crimes. Does
that make my position a bit more understandable, perhaps ? Not a million
miles from where you are coming from, I think.

I'm not sure that I can accept that people lifted under prevention of
terrorism legislation either of yours, or ours, can be strictly treated as
POWs, just because your prez has coined this phrase " 'war' on terror ", and
our former lap-dog has gone along with him on it. Neither you, nor us, is
formerly 'at war' with any declared enemy, so 'POW' status of prisoners that
rely on that condition being established, is not actually valid at this
time. Which means that if the military have incarcerated them under their
own jurisdiction, and with the blessing of their government, then we are
already some distance down the dark fork in the road that leads to
totalitarian state control, with the military as its enforcing muscle...

I'm also not at all sure that the conditions under which prisoners are held
and 'persuaded' at Guantanamo - and this has been the subject of news
reports and documentaries using film happily supplied by the US military -
fall under the guidlines and specifics of the Geneva Convention. I'm not
sure how the fact that it is a military prison affects the way that it
treats its inmates. Presumably, if you are a member of the US military, and
you get court marshalled for some offence, and banged up in a military
prison, you would not expect to be kept in a cage in the sun, or subjected
to hours in stress positions, or water boarded, would you ? Perhaps I'm
missing something here in what constitutes a military prison as against a
civilian one over there ?

Further, I'm not convinced that your senator Kennedy and his chums, shut up
for quite the reasons that you suppose. They may indeed have had a door
slammed shut, but I'm willing to bet that it was a political one, and behind
them, at that. Even though they are on the other side of the table from the
uber-chief, I don't think that would have stopped them from admitting they
were wrong, if they were. There's a lot of political mileage to be had by
'eating humble pie', particularly in an election year, and if liberals here
are anything to go by, they would not be afraid to use such a visit in any
way that they could, to gain press exposure. There is also the other way of
looking at it, in that perhaps they were so traumatised by what they *did*
see, that they felt unable to continue to bring it to the attention of the
senate, the people, and the rest of the wiorld, for fear of the potential
political repercussions for the country as a whole...

I too am on the side of acting with caution where there is genuine
intelligence that points at specific threats, but again, it is very easy to
succumb to the 'reds under the bed' situation, that did a lot of
long-standing damage to the political validity of your country on the world
stage, all those years ago. You most likely have seen the recent case where
the Brazillian man was shot dead here by police, at a London tube station,
as a result of shaky intelligence indicating that he was a terror suspect,
incorrectly interpreted, and badly managed by the senior officers involved.
It's a very classic example of 'reds under the bed' thinking, that prevailed
for a while here after the successful and unsuccessful attacks on London.
I'm sure that the officers that shot him dead acted in good faith, and made
what they considered to be a valid judgement call, but you can't help
thinking that their judgement may have been clouded to some extent by the
'everyone's a potential terrorist' thinking that was being pushed in the
public's face by the then Home Secretary and his master in number 10.

Finally, I think it is a dangerous path to tread believing that because
certain small fundamentalist factions of a particular religion have used
words such as "Jihad" - actually a fairly loose word, which in more
instances means a spiritual struggle rather than a physical one - that this
actually means that any kind of war in the lawful sense of the word, has
been declared. Once you have the population believing that you are 'at war'
as a government, it leaves you able to commit all sorts of acts in the name
of defending your side of that war, that would otherwise, not be considered
acceptable in a civilised society.

This doesn't mean that we don't have a huge potential problem with the 'east
meets west' situation, or that we don't all have to remain vigilant to the
*potential* for large scale death and destruction to be wreaked on us by the
bad guys. But we also need to keep it in proportion, otherwise we *are*
terrorised and unable to pursue what we would consider to be our normal
'free' western way of life, and the bad guys don't then need to even pop
their heads over the side of the trench ...


I don't know quite what all this has to do with Toyota cars, mending
electronic equipment (my group) or hydrogen based energy, but it sure is a
fun discussion amongst intelligent people from different political, cultural
and working backgrounds ! Sorry to the Usenet Police, but at least it is
confined to one thread, that had a tenuous connection to any of the groups
in the first place !

Arfa

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:4u_fj.26132$wy2.6947@edtnps90...

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:tr_fj.26131$wy2.200@edtnps90...

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:twVfj.4674$%A6.3306@trndny08...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:48:41 +0000, Eeyore wrote:



sharx35 wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:

You have to remember that these people kill with NO remorse, by the
mere fact that they will take themselves out with their victims,
believing it is the Will of Allah.

Where's the American remorse for dead civilian Iraqis ? Two faced
****
!

You ****ing idiot. Terrorists, insurgents, Al Queda and other
barbarians
have killed or injured far more Iraqis than the COALITION have.

Simply untrue.

Graham

Even the BBC admits that.

Calling the BBC a liar?

****ing rights I am. BBC is now full of brainless left-wing LIEbrawl
'droids. Ditto for Reuters, Al Jazeerah, PBS, NPR and my countries
LIEbrawl/NDP dominated Canadian Broadcorping Castration. (CBC).

Most of the time BBC journalists slag the U.S.. It's VERY rarely that you
see any NON-yellow journalism on the BBC when it comes to Iraq.


I don't think that is quite true. The BBC *officially* has no political
bias, but it has long been accepted that due to appointments of very
left-wing-sympathetic senior management, it has become the left-sponsored
mouthpiece of Blair's government and publicity / spin machine, so Blair
loves the U.S. = BBC loves the U.S. This has changed a little since the
demise of Blair, and his replacement with his long-term sidekick Brown.
Because of various political gaffes and demonstrations of ineptitude, Brown
has lost a considerable amount of political ground, which has allowed the
formerly weak right wing opposition party under Cameron, to gain a lot of
ground.

This has caused the BBC to rapidly re-evaluate its considered position, and
move back to the right, which has taken them back towards centre neutrality.
Thus if a story needs reporting that if presented 'neutrally', gives the
U.S. a kicking, then that is tending to be what is now happening. A few
months ago, such a story would have been dressed up to show the U.S. in a
better light, for fear of upsetting Blair's government, or simply 'buried'
in other more important news like what colour underpants Nicole Kidman is
wearing today ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

snipped to reduce post length

As I said, I am all for erring on the side of caution, and maybe imprison
someone who is innocent, rather than make the mistake of turning someone
loose who may loose a Dirty Bomb on my kids. Tough call, indeed, since *I*
myself would not want to be held for nothing, but the War was declared by
the Islamists (as a "Jihad" against the "Infidels") and the devastation of
9/11 was worse in terms of loss of life than Pearl Harbor.


Hmmm. A lot of highly contentious points there, I think. We might be talking
'apples and oranges' with your prisons, and ours (yes, you are correct, I am
English, or "British" if that makes more sense to you ... another issue ...)
I have seen many TV programmes about US jails, which may or may not be
totally factual, but the overwhelming impression given, is that they are, on
the whole, hard places, where the inmates are left in no doubt about the
fact that they are there as a punishment. We too used to have such a prison
system, but in recent years, it has declined in severity to the point where
many prisons are now seen as a 'home away from home' - allbeit one that you
can't leave - by many career criminals. This has led to huge amounts of
reoffending and recidivism. I am not against prisoners having their time
made use of, nor of them being paid for doing work which is ultimately of
use to the community that they offended against. I don't have a problem with
them earning privileges such as TV time and extra visits. I don't have a
problem with offenders learning new skills that may help them when they are
released. What I do have a problem with is the way these things have now
become 'rights' rather than 'earnings' as a result of human rights
legislation. Prisoners now, in large part, have a right, set in law, to be
treated as though they were still on the outside, instead of banged up to be
punished for what are often highly uncivilsed an IN - humane crimes. Does
that make my position a bit more understandable, perhaps ? Not a million
miles from where you are coming from, I think.

I'm not sure that I can accept that people lifted under prevention of
terrorism legislation either of yours, or ours, can be strictly treated as
POWs, just because your prez has coined this phrase " 'war' on terror ", and
our former lap-dog has gone along with him on it. Neither you, nor us, is
formerly 'at war' with any declared enemy, so 'POW' status of prisoners that
rely on that condition being established, is not actually valid at this
time. Which means that if the military have incarcerated them under their
own jurisdiction, and with the blessing of their government, then we are
already some distance down the dark fork in the road that leads to
totalitarian state control, with the military as its enforcing muscle...

I'm also not at all sure that the conditions under which prisoners are held
and 'persuaded' at Guantanamo - and this has been the subject of news
reports and documentaries using film happily supplied by the US military -
fall under the guidlines and specifics of the Geneva Convention. I'm not
sure how the fact that it is a military prison affects the way that it
treats its inmates. Presumably, if you are a member of the US military, and
you get court marshalled for some offence, and banged up in a military
prison, you would not expect to be kept in a cage in the sun, or subjected
to hours in stress positions, or water boarded, would you ? Perhaps I'm
missing something here in what constitutes a military prison as against a
civilian one over there ?

Further, I'm not convinced that your senator Kennedy and his chums, shut up
for quite the reasons that you suppose. They may indeed have had a door
slammed shut, but I'm willing to bet that it was a political one, and behind
them, at that. Even though they are on the other side of the table from the
uber-chief, I don't think that would have stopped them from admitting they
were wrong, if they were. There's a lot of political mileage to be had by
'eating humble pie', particularly in an election year, and if liberals here
are anything to go by, they would not be afraid to use such a visit in any
way that they could, to gain press exposure. There is also the other way of
looking at it, in that perhaps they were so traumatised by what they *did*
see, that they felt unable to continue to bring it to the attention of the
senate, the people, and the rest of the wiorld, for fear of the potential
political repercussions for the country as a whole...

I too am on the side of acting with caution where there is genuine
intelligence that points at specific threats, but again, it is very easy to
succumb to the 'reds under the bed' situation, that did a lot of
long-standing damage to the political validity of your country on the world
stage, all those years ago. You most likely have seen the recent case where
the Brazillian man was shot dead here by police, at a London tube station,
as a result of shaky intelligence indicating that he was a terror suspect,
incorrectly interpreted, and badly managed by the senior officers involved.
It's a very classic example of 'reds under the bed' thinking, that prevailed
for a while here after the successful and unsuccessful attacks on London.
I'm sure that the officers that shot him dead acted in good faith, and made
what they considered to be a valid judgement call, but you can't help
thinking that their judgement may have been clouded to some extent by the
'everyone's a potential terrorist' thinking that was being pushed in the
public's face by the then Home Secretary and his master in number 10.

Finally, I think it is a dangerous path to tread believing that because
certain small fundamentalist factions of a particular religion have used
words such as "Jihad" - actually a fairly loose word, which in more
instances means a spiritual struggle rather than a physical one - that this
actually means that any kind of war in the lawful sense of the word, has
been declared. Once you have the population believing that you are 'at war'
as a government, it leaves you able to commit all sorts of acts in the name
of defending your side of that war, that would otherwise, not be considered
acceptable in a civilised society.

This doesn't mean that we don't have a huge potential problem with the 'east
meets west' situation, or that we don't all have to remain vigilant to the
*potential* for large scale death and destruction to be wreaked on us by the
bad guys. But we also need to keep it in proportion, otherwise we *are*
terrorised and unable to pursue what we would consider to be our normal
'free' western way of life, and the bad guys don't then need to even pop
their heads over the side of the trench ...

I don't know quite what all this has to do with Toyota cars, mending
electronic equipment (my group) or hydrogen based energy, but it sure is a
fun discussion amongst intelligent people from different political, cultural
and working backgrounds ! Sorry to the Usenet Police, but at least it is
confined to one thread, that had a tenuous connection to any of the groups
in the first place !

Arfa

Nice post Arfa and I find myself in close agreement with every point you make.

And to add another viewpoint as who is the real 'terrorist' I'd like to remind
readers that the USA killed innocent civilians travelling by airliner in an
aggressive act LONG before Al Qaeda did anything similar ! Probably before Al
Qaeda even existed as any formal grouping.

Of course the USA decided their actions were reasonable and have not even ever
apologised for killing 290 Iranians and others in cold blood. It surprised me
not one jot that the USA is as a result widely loathed by the Muslim world. It's
the ultimate example of 2-faced ness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by
US missiles on Sunday July 3, 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz, towards the end of
the Iran Iraq War. Operated by Iran Air from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE,
the aircraft flying IR655 was destroyed by the U.S. Navy's guided missile
cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers
and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians, 66 children and one pregnant woman.
Both IR655 and the Vincennes were inside Iranian territorial waters at the time
of the attack.

Technically, since this was inside Iranian waters, this would legally be an 'act
of war' AIUI.

Graham

"witfal" wrote in message
...
On 2008-01-06 09:57:06 -0800, "Arfa Daily" said:

I don't think that is quite true. The BBC *officially* has no political
bias, but it has long been accepted that due to appointments of very
left-wing-sympathetic senior management, it has become the left-sponsored
mouthpiece of Blair's government and publicity / spin machine, so Blair
loves the U.S. = BBC loves the U.S.

Even the BBC admit their bias:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ves/article.do

http://tinyurl.com/yyjn3h

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

http://tinyurl.com/ygs9rf

I'd
say that was official enough.


Clearly, you missed the date at the top of the piece. That article was
penned in 2006, when Blair was still firmly in power, and at which time it
was known by everyone, that the BBC was full of left wing management, that
had been edged into place by friends of the government who were already in
the Corporation, and as a result, it had a pronounced left wing liberalist
bias, which is what I said at the top of my post.

Since the demise of Blair, and his succession by Brown a few months back,
that situation is changing.

Furthermore, the Daily Mail, which is actually my paper of choice, is a
highly right-wing publication, so will of course latch onto anything that is
anti the left wing government, or anything that is perceived to be rooted in
government control, such as the BBC, and take twice the literary mileage
from it that it probably deserves.

So no, the articles that you cite as making it 'official', are so out of
date as to be meaningless. That is not to say that the BBC is suddenly
neutral as it should be, but its position has now shifted a long way right
of where it was perhaps as little as three months ago. Public opinion has
started (finally) to swing away from the lefty doctrines of our current
government, with the right wing mutterings of the major opposition party
gaining ground. Never one to dawdle, the BBC is perhaps beginning to see its
days as the (unofficial) government mouthpiece, becoming numbered, so is
quietly shifting in the same direction ...

Arfa

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:57:06 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

Most of the time BBC journalists slag the U.S.. It's VERY rarely that
you see any NON-yellow journalism on the BBC when it comes to Iraq.


I don't think that is quite true. The BBC *officially* has no political
bias,


Oh, dear, oh dear. I have been listening to the World Service for almost
30 years. Even up to three years ago I would have agreed with this. Two
years ago I was looking for a satellite radio and settled on XM because
they had the World Service. I was so enthralled with the music I didn't
start listening to the BBC until earlier this year.

HOLY ****!!!!!! Have they got Agendas, or WHAT?!?!?! They LOVE slamming
the US, and they shove things down your throat!!! I can't BELIEVE the
change!

For their 75th 'Birthday' they were talking with a guy from the US who has
moved to Shanghai, sold all his US Dollars and securities and is investing
heavily in Asia. He says he finds the BBC delightfully neutral and
unbiased.

He must have cotton for brains...

(But, I still listen to the World Service every night, even when I do find
myself swearing at the radio, which I *NEVER* used to do with the BBC...)

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:43:34 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

. I don't have a problem with them earning privileges such as TV
time and extra visits. I don't have a problem with offenders learning new
skills that may help them when they are released. What I do have a problem
with is the way these things have now become 'rights' rather than
'earnings' as a result of human rights legislation.


Yeah, this I can agree with.

Here, if you screw up, you get sent to the 'hole', (segregation, etc)
where all you get is one hour out and mail. That's it. If you own a radio
(you have to buy them) you can have it, and they will bring you books, but
that's it. No TV, no arts and crafts, and one hour rec per day.

If you behave yourself and play by the rules then you get TV, etc etc. But
they're pretty strict.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:43:34 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

Further, I'm not convinced that your senator Kennedy and his chums, shut
up for quite the reasons that you suppose. They may indeed have had a door
slammed shut, but I'm willing to bet that it was a political one, and
behind them, at that


LOL! We're talking KENNEDY here! He NEVER shuts up!!!

No, if he stopped flapping his gums, it was because he realized he had
nothing to flap them about. If he had found things out of line at
Guantanamo, he would have done his best to shut it down.

His reticence since his visit speaks volumes to me.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:37:14 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

And to add another viewpoint as who is the real 'terrorist' I'd like to
remind readers that the USA killed innocent civilians travelling by
airliner in an aggressive act LONG before Al Qaeda did anything similar !
Probably before Al Qaeda even existed as any formal grouping.

Of course the USA decided their actions were reasonable and have not even
ever apologised for killing 290 Iranians and others in cold blood. It
surprised me not one jot that the USA is as a result widely loathed by the
Muslim world. It's the ultimate example of 2-faced ness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655


Man, some of us are sorry for that, even if we DID have a bone to pick
with the Iranians.

Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

Is this crap coming from 'sci.electronics.repair' or 'alt.autos.toyota' ?

'We' don't read it. Such human importance, that is so worthless. Well,
maybe Graham does.........

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

Is this crap coming from 'sci.electronics.repair' or 'alt.autos.toyota' ?

'We' don't read it. Such human importance, that is so worthless. Well,
maybe Graham does.........

Both, I believe. One responder here (s.e.r) at least one other in the
Toyota group.

I think they ought to get a room....

jak

"Hachiroku ????" wrote in message
news:reggj.6861$LL6.4068@trndny06...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:57:06 +0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

Most of the time BBC journalists slag the U.S.. It's VERY rarely that
you see any NON-yellow journalism on the BBC when it comes to Iraq.


I don't think that is quite true. The BBC *officially* has no political
bias,


Oh, dear, oh dear. I have been listening to the World Service for almost
30 years. Even up to three years ago I would have agreed with this. Two
years ago I was looking for a satellite radio and settled on XM because
they had the World Service. I was so enthralled with the music I didn't
start listening to the BBC until earlier this year.

HOLY ****!!!!!! Have they got Agendas, or WHAT?!?!?! They LOVE slamming
the US, and they shove things down your throat!!! I can't BELIEVE the
change!

For their 75th 'Birthday' they were talking with a guy from the US who has
moved to Shanghai, sold all his US Dollars and securities and is investing
heavily in Asia. He says he finds the BBC delightfully neutral and
unbiased.

He must have cotton for brains...

(But, I still listen to the World Service every night, even when I do find
myself swearing at the radio, which I *NEVER* used to do with the BBC...)


Never-the-less, listen a bit more closely *now*. I wouldn't pretend that the
BBC is yet back to the 'good old days', but over the last few months, it has
most definitely shifted in the right (ha !! get it ? right ?) direction. You
will hear the government here getting a good deal more of a kicking, than it
was when Blair was in charge, and the Corporation lived in fear (and awe) of
his spin machine, and those who ran it such as Campbell, all of whom have
now gone off the scene. The political climate here is changing rapidly, as
it is in the US, and as I said earlier, the BBC, institutional as it is, is
following along not far behind ...

Arfa

"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

Is this crap coming from 'sci.electronics.repair' or 'alt.autos.toyota' ?

'We' don't read it. Such human importance, that is so worthless. Well,
maybe Graham does.........

Both, I believe. One responder here (s.e.r) at least one other in the
Toyota group.

I think they ought to get a room....

jak

It is confined to one thread, and really not doing anyone any harm. It's
just a few people of reasonable intelligence, having a chat down the pub
over a pint. If it's that big a problem to you both, why are you bothering
to keep coming into the thread to look ? Just don't bother, then it won't
represent a worrysome problem to you. I expect that it will die out soon,
anyway ...

Arfa

sharx35 wrote:

It's you LIEbrawl bull**** artists who get into bed with the terrorists at
every conceivable opportunity who are truly responsible. Grow some
spine...and brain, eh!

The Bush family has long been friends with the bin Ladens and arranged
for their exit from the US just after 9/11, before the FBI could
question them. Halliburton, under Dick Cheney's leadership, violated
the trade embargo against Iran and helped fund their support of
terrorism, and Reagan armed the radical Islamic resistance to the USSR
in Afghanistan. Conservatives have been in bed with terrorists at
least as much as liberals have, son.

Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:46:41 +0000, Eeyore wrote:


Have you always been so naive and so stupid or did you have to take
lessons from LIEbrawls?

Just how gullible are you ? Do you think they would have been released if
they were actually guilty of something ?

Suspicion =/= guilt. If the USA wants to say it is then it doesn't belong
in a civilised society.

But it's not just the US. The UK sends people to Gitmo. Australia sends
people to Gitmo. Afghanis send people to Gitmo. It isn't just the US
rounding these people up.

The former warden of the other U.S. prison at Guantanimo, a very tough
Marine who could not be described as a bleeding heart, would not have
tolerated the conditions in the prison where the Muslims are being
held in Cuba.

Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:36:57 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

I don't think so. ALL the people held in Gunatanamp with Britsih
nationality have no been released IIRC. They were guilty maybe of being in
the wrong place at the wrong time only.

Graham

Close enough for government work. Rather have them there than plotting
against wither the US or the UK.

So you'd rather have us breed more terrorists than reform them. The
fact is the vast majority of those POWs were ignorant and illiterate
and fought simply because they thought they were at war with an enemy
Afghani tribe, or they were drafted or bribed by local warlords.

Set the vast majority of the prisoners free with large sums of money,
and concentrate on the real terrorists among them.