web analytics

BRINGING BINYAM HOME…?

By ATWadmin On February 2nd, 2009

Thank goodness for that”. An alleged “British resident” (aka an Ethiopian) said to be just ‘skin and bone’ and close to death in the Guantanamo Bay camp is to be flown back to the UK within days.

West London “student” Binyam Mohamed, 30, who has been on a hunger strike since January 5 after being held in the prison camp for four years, has collapsed several times in recent days. His immediate repatriation to Britain is being arranged as US authorities face a political row should a British fatality occur in the prison. Lieutenant Colonel Yvonne Bradley, an American military lawyer who last week saw Mohamed in his cell – where he has been kept under solitary confinement – described how he was wasting away. ‘The real worry is that he comes out in a coffin,’ she said.

No, I wouldn’t have said this was a real worry, more of a real hope for those who despise Al Queda.

Let’s cut hrough the spurious nonsense here, shall we?

For starters, Mr Mohamed entered the UK illegally in 1994. That is precisely how valid his status as a “British resident” is. He is an Ethiopian wanting a slice of welfare UK.

Second, good old Londoner Binyam decided that because he had “drug issues” what better way to deal with them to travel to….an Al Queda training camp in Pakistan. He was subsequently captured and confessed to being an AQ terrorist.

“There is no doubt that Binyam Mohamed, a native of Ethiopia who lived in the United States and London for years, traveled to Afghanistan to train in al Qaeda’s al Farouq training camp in June 2001. He freely admitted this to his personal representative at Guantánamo. The government’s unclassified files explain that he “received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.” He was also “taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.”

What happened after his training at al Farouq is a bit more ambiguous, but the government believes he was en route to America, where he was to stage an attack. Binyam and his lawyer claim that he wanted the al Qaeda training to fight in Chechnya — and not to fight American forces. But many fresh recruits were influenced to travel to Afghanistan for training to fight in Chechnya and ended up being repurposed by al Qaeda for other missions. This is what happened with some of the 9/11 hijackers.

The U.S. government believes that senior al Qaeda terrorists wanted to use Binyam in an attack inside America. He was allegedly going to work with convicted terrorist Jose Padilla. Early reports said that Padilla was attempting to use a so-called “dirty bomb,” comprised of radioactive components. The government’s unclassified files note that Padilla and Binyam reviewed information about a dirty bomb at an al Qaeda safe house, but this does not appear to be the plot they intended to execute. Binyam mentioned the possibility of attacking subways to his al Qaeda handlers. And they suggested attacking apartment buildings by setting natural gas lines on fire.

Naturally faux Londonder Binyam has since claimed he was tortured – just as the AQ training manual instructs. He has become a cause celebre and Britain wants him back. This is how weak-kneed our authorities hjave become in the fight against Jihad, they swallow every fabrication that AQ terrorists make and convince themselves that every Gitmo inmate is an innocent abroad. It’s a death-wish mindset and yet it is the one that prevails at this time. It’s as if we need to experience one massive Al Queda atrocity that makes even 9/11 pale into insignificance before official eyes open to the threat in front of us. But in the meantime, we import Jihadi.

67 Responses to “BRINGING BINYAM HOME…?”

  1. >>Binyam has since claimed he was tortured – just as the AQ training manual instructs.<<

    Was that written by the CIA?

  2. I think Cheney wrote it, just before the CIA planted the explosives in the Twin Towers.

  3. Was there not an AQ manual found by police in Manchester which made revealed their method statements?

  4. MI5 dirty tricks Allan 😉

  5. Oh p l e a s e you don’t have a shred of compassion do you David. Of course we want this young Brit back, after all he was only taking a holiday when picked up. We will, at tax payers cost, nurse him back to health, give him a council house, possible a job at Total. God these do gooders make me so angry..no they don’t I am beyond caring anymore have given up the F**** PC brigade win.

  6. "Was there not an AQ manual found by police in Manchester which made revealed their method statements?"

    Yes, amd there was an Al Qaeada manual found in Afghanistan which instructed them on how to fake signs of abuse to show to the Red Cross and how to goad the American into hitting them, again to get bruises to show the Red Cross.

  7. …well written post David…

  8. Maggie,

    Don’t let the bastards wear you down!

  9. If there is evidence against him put him on trial, find him guilty and lock him up until he is no longer a threat to society.

    The problem with Gitmo is that, like internment in NI, it is a huge recruiting sergeant for Al-Qa’eda. We are doing their job for them.
    We have to maintain the moral high ground – otherwise we enter the same moral abyss in which these Al-Qa’eda terrorist inhabit.
    And as galling as it is, especially if the evidence is that strong, until this man is found guilty he is innocent, and as such has a right to the protection and services of his country (I am not sure he entered the UK illegally – he is claiming asylum here and therefore we have legal obligations) – even if that country was a place he was planning to attack.
    That all sounds like we as a country are being taken for a ride. But what is the alternative? To say we aren’t going to have due process? That we are going to arbitrarily arrest and detain people based on what?
    We can do that – we can try the "might is right" approach. I would say that it hasn’t worked terribly well anywhere else and whatever moral leadership the West would lay claim to, we would immediately cede.
    Some may say that is a price worth paying. But if we do, then in what way would we be different from other tyrannies?
    We have to follow legal codes based on common humanity – even if the people against whom we are fighting don’t.

  10. "We have to maintain the moral high ground – otherwise we enter the same moral abyss in which these Al-Qa’eda terrorist inhabit."

    What price the so-called ‘moral high ground’ if we end up losing anyway?

    Strange that lefties only have a moral high ground when it comes standing up and fighting terrorism, but are lacking in any such morality at other times.

    Typical socialist tosh and hypocrisy!

  11. "to be just ‘skin and bone’ and close to death"

    Oh dear!

  12. It is immensely amusing to watch the liberal mouthpieces having to come to terms with the fact that Gitmo served a purpose in keeping some very nasty, evil and dangerous people from murdering and abusing their fellow human beings.

    Funnily enough monsters like Binyam Mohamed, left to their own devices would variously murder, mutilate, stone to death, and generally deny any semblance of human rights or dignity to the people who whine so poignantly on their behalf.

  13. "We have to follow legal codes based on common humanity – even if the people against whom we are fighting don’t."

    An example of one who has others to do the heavy lifting of protecting the society in which they live, leaving them free to ‘sit on their high horse’ pontificating.

    I doubt he even knows what ‘çommon humanity’ really is!

    In other words – a typical hypocritical pissant socialist loser…

  14. >>Strange that lefties only have a moral high ground when it comes standing up and fighting terrorism, but are lacking in any such morality at other times.<<
    Not quite sure to what you are alluding?
    You are right what price if we lose, but I wasn’t planning on losing. Adopting a position of common human dignity is an end in itself, but it is also a means to an end – that of peace and trying to find a way through to peaceful co-existence.

    >>Gitmo served a purpose in keeping some very nasty, evil and dangerous people from murdering and abusing their fellow human beings.<<
    Yes it did – but if in doing so it creates 10 new nasty, evil and dangerous people to take their place, then it is not a very sensible strategy.

    >>Funnily enough monsters like Binyam Mohamed, left to their own devices would variously murder, mutilate, stone to death, and generally deny any semblance of human rights or dignity to the people who whine so poignantly on their behalf.<<
    They may well do, but that isn’t a reason not to do it. In fact all the more reason to follow the law. It helps to undermine any justification they might have.

  15. >>An example of one who has others to do the heavy lifting of protecting the society in which they live, leaving them free to ‘sit on their high horse’ pontificating.<<

    Sorry I really don’t understand what you are saying. Is this Binyam Mohamed you are talking about, or are you making an ad hominem attack against me?

  16. Ernest – someone put salt in your bran this morning?

    This dude should have been given a trial and if guilty, convicted and imprisoned. Instead they’ve created a terrorists another rallying point.

    As for the residency law, shouldn’t that be focused upon and cured so that the UK isn’t granting asylum to folks who happen to enter.

  17. But Obama’s closing Gitmo, right?? All is well now….

  18. "home"

    I love it when these guys are referred to as "British", in any way. Such a joke.

  19. Jaz, I really do understand your sentiment, but if letting terrorists, who have silenced those who might testify against them with bullets and baseball bats (as in Northern Ireland) go free, so that they can murder thousands is the high ground, I am happy in the valley.

  20. Jaz,

    "but I wasn’t planning on losing."

    No-one does, but it happens anyway. Hasn’t history shown that appeasement and concession are a sure way to guarantee losing!

    As for your second complaint – yes I was referring to you.

    As for being ‘ád hominem’, nonsense, – your whole argument is based on appeasement, I was remarking how it is always those (such as you), who would be last in line when it came to actually and physically defending your society, but are quite happy to see others doing the dirty, but necessary job that you so distainfully would decline to do.

    That is not ad hominem, if I had bluntly called you a coward and suggested that your argument was largely based on that premise, that could possibly be called ad hominem.

    Either way, I see your position as largely based on hypocrisy, at worst, or wishful thinking, at best…

  21. Mahons,

    I quite agree, so why were trials not held promptly? Isn’t justice supposed to be timely to be considered ‘fair’? Wasn’t it the bleating of ‘the left’ that largely hindered any prompt action on the matter? Whatever, it didn’t happen – so what?

    As for the matter of residency, that is yet another aspect of the left’s supposed regard for humanitarian behaviour, but only as it applies to foreigners, or as they are called in the US – aliens.

    The damage has been done – time for the UK to stop trying to be ‘Mr. Nice Guy’, and to try some of that ‘humanity’ on the indigenous population.

  22. How can jaz be called a coward simply for expressing an opinion on how the law should be applied to terrorist suspects. There would surely also be a case to apply the term coward to those who demand ‘tough summary action’ without getting their hands dirty themselves.

    However we are all, very one of us, just talking heads here expressing opinions on a 1001 topics we aren’t personally involved in. It is silly to use the word coward to describe anyone of us just for commenting here.

  23. I do however believe that we should not under any circumstances be permiting this individual to come to Britain. He is not British amd has absolutely no claim to residency here.

  24. I suspected that was the case. Be very careful before throwing around accusations.

    I served in the British Army for five years, doing, what was your phrase, "the heavy lifting of protecting the society in which they live". Have you?

    >>I was remarking how it is always those (such as you), who would be last in line when it came to actually and physically defending your society,<<
    So you have stood in that line as well I take it? Maybe we were there together, I don’t know. I certainly know that I was.
    If you have served, then you will know that accusing a brother soldier of being a coward is a despicable thing to do – and not something you do without overwhelming proof.
    If you haven’t served then I will leave it to others to say who is the hypocrite.
    Either way a simple apology will suffice.

  25. Charles – He’s closing a prison a particular prison. Don’t mistake that for a release of all of the prisoners.

    Ernest – The failure to proceed with fair trials was and is a hallmark of the Bush Legacy. Nothing to do with "The Left". Gitmo was an attempt to make an end run around the legal system, and we are paying for such a policy now.

  26. Colm – the problem we have is that he claimed asylum here. Now I am no lawyer so I don’t know what rights that gives him, but I fear that we have a responsibility under international law to take him back.
    Clearly if we don’t have that obligation then we would be crazy to accept him back. Let him plead his case in an Ethiopian court.

  27. Jaz

    He was given temporary leave to remain in Britain as his case was being heard and then he unlawfully left the county and tried to return from Pakistan on a forged British Passport. He has never been declared a genuine refugee and invalidated the terms of residency he had here. I see absolutely no obligation why we should permit him to return. He should be returned to Ethiopia.

  28. He waived his "rights" to residency status surely by leaving.

  29. Colm – if that is the legal position, then I very much hope we can rightfully say we have discharged any responsibilities we had with regard to this person, and he becomes the problem of the Ethiopian government – not that there is one.
    My fear is that there is going to be some hideous clause in some treaty somewhere that says he is still our problem. But I very much hope not and we can wash our hands of this person.

  30. "Don’t mistake that for a release of all of the prisoners."

    Now that Obama’s in, i don’t think the left cares Mahons. However, I think that if they’re brought to the US, they’ll be begging for Club Cribb!

  31. Charles – Well that is a pretty vague. Who is this uncaring left?

  32. I love the idea that people on this site think Obama is in any way ‘left.’

    P.S. Mahons,

    Still chortling about that Gitmo gag….

  33. Jaz

    "And as galling as it is, especially if the evidence is that strong, until this man is found guilty he is innocent"

    He is PRESUMED innocent. It’s just a legal presumtion, Apart from that I don’t disagree with your point.

  34. Aileen
    I concede your point. You are correct. He is presumed innocent, even if he almost certainly is a guilty as sin.

  35. Which is it surprises me that the US authorities didn’t conduct trials to show the world the guilt of people like this.

  36. Jaz,

    When you talk like one, then it’s fair to assume you are one, or is it that we cannot take anything you say without a large ‘pinch of salt’?

    As for serving for five years….? and you talk of maintaining ‘the high moral ground’? You weren’t one of those sailors,who cried when his mp3 player was confiscated when captured by the Iraquis by any chance?

    Yes I have served, and I fail to recognise in you anything that suggests you may have been a ‘brother in arms’.

    I still see you as a wishful thinker, – at best, and a hypocrite – at worst…that you expect an apology suggests you are also delusional.

  37. >>and I fail to recognise in you anything that suggests you may have been a ‘brother in arms’.<<

    Ernest, if you are anything more than just another bigmouth, place a bet that JAZ never served.

    Well?

  38. Alex -i aim to please.

  39. Noel

    But to be honest anyone can indeed say anything about their histories on a blog like this. I am not saying that Jaz may be lying but how would any of us really know otherwise ? . Commenters here should argue their opinions and leave it at that. Bringing up Personal ‘facts’ which cannot be proved unless you physically meet up with another commenter are pointless.

  40. >>Bringing up Personal ‘facts’ which cannot be proved <<

    But they can. If Ernest is not a moral coward, he would be prepared to stand behind the remarks he made here. A nice sum could be mailed by both to (and kept by) David. Then Jaz could mail David a copy of his service book, or whatever.

    This would finally settle the quesiton of whether Ernest’s mouth is bigger than his ego.

  41. The attitudes of soldiers range from the liberalist lilly liver right through to the ‘sitting on a porch strumming a banjo’ type rednecks. To think you’d be able to decipher wether or not somebody served is absurd.

  42. Good idea Noel.

  43. Noel

    I do agree that Ernest was wrong to call Jaz a coward and it is pointless for him to presume Jaz’z military history or lack of when he has absolutely no idea who Jaz is , but getting involved in a ‘show your hands’ bet with David as guarantor is a bit OTT.

  44. >>bet with David as guarantor is a bit OTT.<<

    Sometimes it’s the only way to show cowards up for what they are.
    Since the Gaza thing started, I have challenged 3 commenters, who told lies about what I’d said, to a bet. All three backed down, sulking.
    I have no doubt Ernest would make it the Gang of Four cowards.

  45. Noel

    You’ll get a reputation as the hardman of the ATW Saloon. The one who was quick to role his sleeves and bunch his fists but all opponents ran off quaking at your challenge to ‘come outside’ 😉

  46. Or possibly need an intervention or at least a referral to the local chapter of Gamblers’ Anonymous.

  47. Noel,

    You do love to put your slant on what has been said, to suit your argument.

    I did say that I failed to recognise him as a brother in arms, – is that the same as saying he didn’t serve? – he may well have worn a uniform – that alone does not make him soldier in anything other than name, and I refuse to recognise him as being in anyway comparable to the men I served with, they were true ‘brothers in arms’, a title that was earned, not one dispensed by a politician or recruiting sergeant to give pay clerks a ‘feelgood’ moment.

    No soldier, having served with real purpose and intent would ever spout the appeasment rubbish that he does, or is that just where the Israel/Palestinian conflict is concerned?

    Call me what you like, that is your perogative, but if I should respond in kind, – don’t be surprised, however don’t expect me to participate in your childish antics. I am long past being goaded into such stunts…so go ahead – do your worst, you may even convince yourself that you ‘have the moral high ground’, heaven knows you are delusional enough…but I will still have the same opinion of you and your fellow appeasers…

  48. Colm, in theory and practice I am a man of peace!
    To be honest, though, I’m suprised you put up with so much **** from our serious friend.
    And your mother comes from Co. Galway! Honestly!

  49. Colm,

    What price Noel’s bravery in cyberspace? and he sneers at ‘armchair generals’. isn’t he so brave? -and such a hypocrite…

  50. Ernest, I’d said you’d soon climb down from your

    >>you), who would be last in line when it came to actually and physically defending your society, but are quite happy to see others doing the dirty, but necessary job that you so distainfully would decline to do.<<

    but I didn’t realise you’d take to your heels quite so quickly.

    So, pocket wins over pride once again. Sad to see another example of how materialist modern life has become!

  51. We have to maintain the moral high ground – otherwise we enter the same moral abyss in which these Al-Qa’eda terrorist inhabit.
    Monday, February 2, 2009 at 01:47PM | Jaz

    Do al-Qaeda, hamas, hezbollah et al understand what a ‘moral high ground ‘ is?

    As for ‘presumed innocent’, why are the inmates presumed innocent when the evidence shows that they should be presumed guilty? Based on risk management principles, and health and safety, the inmates should be detained indefinitely as it has been shown that upon release, they return to their natural, murderous ways.

  52. Allan – some have (what fools let them go without trial), some have not. So your indefinite detention is pure tyranny. Which is what we are against.

  53. Noel,

    I note you have resorted to outright name calling, – so much for your code of blogging ethics. Are all your principals so transitional and adaptable?

  54. >>I note you have resorted to outright name calling,..Are all your principals so transitional and adaptable?<<

    Ernest, one of the reasons I got involved here is because you are one of the worst name-callers on this blog. There are several examples even on this thread. You’ve now shown yourself up as one of the worst hypocrites, too.
    If you can’t take it, don’t give it.

  55. Noel,

    That’s a fine game you are trying to play, but as you aren’t involved, – unless Jaz is your psuedonym, – an easy one to play, and one you know will get no takers, it has been tried on other blogs with similar results.

    Did you read my rebuttal re calling Jaz a coward, it didn’t happen, that was your interpretation not mine….

  56. Mr Young
    When I was in the Army, honour and respect were important values.
    I can tell you the difference between an L8A1 GPMG and an L37A1 GPMG, I can give you the engagement sequence for an FSAPDS round. I can give you the BFPO number of BATUS. I can tell you the name of the training area attached to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, where I spent six months. I can tell you that a company charge sheet was a 252 and, somewhere, I think I may still have my original 1066 for the issue of my whites when I served in the Middle East. My dog tags are hanging in my office.
    But having looked at your posting history I think I have an inkling as to the response, and fear it would be an exercise in futility.
    I never expected an apology from you. You don’t seem to be the kind of a person who would.

  57. Noel,

    I can’t take it? do your worst, – but you should really save your puerile remarks for someone who may care…

  58. Jaz,

    I am sure you looked lovely in your ‘whites’, bully for you! – that does not make you, in any way a ‘comrade in arms’ of mine or of my comrades, nor does it make you an expert on ME affairs. Different times, different wars, different army…

    To offer an apology I would first have to respect you and your opinions, – in short, having read your commenting history, – I don’t. I am sure that you don’t feel deprived or surprised by this, but that’s life..,

  59. >>I can’t take it? <<

    No you can’t.

    First, you called someone here "a typical hypocritical pissant socialist loser" (just one example) and when I called you a coward you start whinging "you have resorted to outright name calling".

    Rank hypocrisy, Ernest. But with that ego of yours you will probably be unable to recognise even that.

  60. By the way, Ernest, I’ve noticed you’re getting quite upset about a lot of opinions expressed on this site lately, as you said youself, even hinting at censorship.
    I’d suggest if you can’t handle different opinions, you really shouldn’t be visiting a blog like this.

  61. Noel,

    Keep it up, fabrication really is your forte…

  62. Mr Young
    I never claimed to be an expert in ME affairs – although having been on active service in the Middle East and having seen Arab/Israeli peace talks first hand I think I have sound understanding.
    I was simply refuting your comments where you accused me of being last in line when it came to actually and physically defending your society, but are quite happy to see others doing the dirty, but necessary job that you so distainfully (sic) would decline to do.
    You then denigrate my military service, dismissing my service as a soldier as one dispensed by a politician or recruiting sergeant to give pay clerks a ‘feelgood’ moment.
    I have never heard of one soldier taking such an extraordinarily offensive line against another soldier. Anyone who has picked up a gun to defend their country, who has put life on the line, is worthy of respect; certainly in the Army in which I served.
    I don’t know where and when you served. Aden? Korea? WW2? I don’t know. But I certainly would not dream of denigrating your military service.
    That you have made those comments, and that you are not prepared to withdraw them, says everything that we need to know about the kind of person you have become.

  63. What price the so-called ‘moral high ground’ if we end up losing anyway?

    What price victory for that matter?

    Personally, I think its easier for older people to give up more as they know that the consequences of such sacrifices will not be theirs to bear. Its also ironic that those who bleat loudest about what makes Britian great are among the first and quickest to ditch those qualities in the face of rather pathetic adversaries.

  64. Jaz,

    As I mentioned previously: "Different times, different wars, different army…" to which I would add – different country and a different philosophy.

    Respect is earned, not granted for signing on the dotted line…which could possibly be a reason why so few "other ranks’ have such little respect for the officer class…

  65. I shall end this tedious exchange and leave others to draw their own conclusions as to the kind of a man who makes baseless allegations and then, when they are shown to be false, attempts to shift the ground to avoid doing the very simple thing of admitting they were wrong.
    I know what I did – and it was a heck of a lot more than signing on the dotted line; but I don’t have to justify myself to a person of such demonstrably low integrity as you.
    I would describe a person who took the actions you have as contemptible. Other people can form their own conclusions.

  66. Oh dear. All this rancour, and all because Jaz and Ernest disagreed about Guantanamo !

  67. Jaz,

    Is that another of your ‘high ground’ plays?…quite pathetic!