Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

What should happen to the 5 Brits freed from their illegal imprisonment?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Its indisputable that the production of heroin has gone up. I see the results on the streets. Do some research.
    And about the CIA - note that I did say "according to some sources.". Not "definitely".

    Yes it is true the production of heroin has gone up, due to the relative lawlessness in post taliban afghanistan after the utter repression that country experienced under the taliban.

    But to suggest that the CIA are somehow involved with heroin production or heroin dealing is utterly ridiculous, you crazy conspiracy theorists need to learn to be at least somewhat credible when you criticise the U.S.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Im surprised Kermy, to hear you actually continuing with the long discredited concept that criticism of the US administration or any administration is anti-Americanism, or anti-British (as the case may be) is surprising indeed. I had long thought you above such typical misnomers spouted by the reactionistic element you allude to (since they have no other intellectually legitimate response other than personal attack).

    There is indeed legitimate criticism of the U.S. administration, but outside of the US this criticism often merges with blatant anti-americanism. Which is what gets my goat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Being overseas myself I can inform you that criticism of US policy is simply that and nothing else. Noone I have heard in any circle, especially government policy circles, attacks "America" (i.e. its citizens) apart from lamenting how utterly misinformed a far too significant proportion of our population is, and they are correct in that analysis.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Being overseas myself I can inform you that criticism of US policy is simply that and nothing else. Noone I have heard in any circle, especially government policy circles, attacks "America" (i.e. its citizens) apart from lamenting how utterly misinformed a far too significant proportion of our population is, and they are correct in that analysis.

    I also live in Brussels and for my part the criticism that I tend to encounter is often a direct attack on american 'stupidity' etc...

    Perhaps in the more polite political/diplomatic circles that you socialise with the criticism is less moronic, but among 'normal' people it is less so.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well we all have our differing experiences, so I dont doubt that there are those who subscribe to generalisations, but i might suggest you attempt to draw such people out more in terms of qualifying in what ways they consider Americans stupid.

    I would suspect most either simply react to the beligerence which most of our countrymen regularly demonstrate as tourists over here (which disgusts me as well and only embarrasses our national character more than our leaders are already doing), or else they are merely applying the improper term to describe the level of misinformation upon which many Americans are heard to proclaim this or that about other nations and people without having any firsthand personal experience of those nations or people.

    Case in point is the ridiculous campaign to rename french fries "freedom fries" and other such examples of idiocy. That, you might agree, does not speak very highly of our country.

    Whereabouts in Brussels do you live and have you been here long?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by groovechampion
    Yes it is true the production of heroin has gone up, due to the relative lawlessness in post taliban afghanistan after the utter repression that country experienced under the taliban.

    But to suggest that the CIA are somehow involved with heroin production or heroin dealing is utterly ridiculous, you crazy conspiracy theorists need to learn to be at least somewhat credible when you criticise the U.S.

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=CIA+heroin+connection&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

    Lots of sources there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lots of sources for any conspiracy theory under the sun.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you can find where I claimed it was 100% true, you can have my next paycheque.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its no conspriacy theory, ladymuck, that the CIA has had long and close association with international drug cartels. In Columbia, in Cambodia, In Afghanistan, there have been numerous citations of direct CIA involvement and backing for drug smuggling. There is an enormous and unaccountable source of revenue to be gained and funding of insurgencies around the globe cost the CIA plenty.

    Simply because its not discussed in mainstream media means that it doesnt happen. Conspiracy theory has long been a means of whitewashing illicit backchannel activity. Power politics is by its very nature conspiratorial.

    All the more reason to continue seeking to expose such dealings, which the naive majority are too content to dismiss without the slightest scrutiny.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you can find where I claimed it was 100% true, you can have my next paycheque

    Why link to them if you don't believe in their veracity?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because its an interesting subject. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence linking the CIA to drug running. But there I haven't seen 100% proof. So I keep an open mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by groovechampion
    Alladin you spout some crazy stuff. Knee jerk anti-americanism is the preserve of the French no?
    What bollocks are you talking about?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    They don't necessarily need to be in custody while the investigation takes place though... only if the judge deems it necessary.

    As you and Whowhere have been mentioning this I'd like to bring out something I've been giving some thought about. What constitutes 'treason'? Are the instances in which treason (or rather, fighting against forces under the command of the government that rules the country where you have been born) can be a commendable, or at least justifiable action?

    Suppose Britain was taken over by a brutal dictator such as Mugabe. Once the dictator has established himself and there is no doubt that he's the head of state and controls the government and army, would you consider it 'high treason' if there were people out there fighting a guerrilla war against the Army?

    My point is that there can be such thing as justification for such a position. If Britain were today under attack from another country and there were Britons at home fighting against the British forces and aiding the invader I think there is little doubt of the act of treason. But what you got here is people who by all accounts appeared to be in Afghanistan well before Britain even intended to go to war against them, and who regardless of their nationality were there to offer support to a community they felt identified with. No one asked the British forces to invade a sovereign nation, and one thing clear as hell is that Britain wasn't under any danger from the Taliban. So regrettable as it is that these people wished to associate themselves with a brutal regime as Afghanistan, I somehow doubt they can be charged with treason for aiding their hosts to fight a foreign invader that happened to contain a few soldiers from the country they were born in.


    I didn't realise that fighting the US army is now a crime punishable with jail or death.


    Treason is a crime against the people and government of one's own country. If our government was overthrown by some sort of dictator then fighting against him would still be classed as treason, however that is very unlikely to happen, but if it meant getting rid of Blair would it matter anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes but supposse for a minute that such thing happened, and that a brutal and by all means evil dictator took charge. If some people where later arrested and convicted of trying to overthrow the dictator and so of treason, would you be demanding they receive the maximum penalty the law allows- even though you hated the dictator like the next man?

    The point I'm trying to make is that the charge of treason is not a black and white issue. Had those men taken arms in the UK against UK forces in an effort to overthrow our democracy and install a dictatorship, I think most people would agree on the charge of treason.

    But this case could hardly be more different. The men were there before hostilities took place and it's not even clear whether they actually fought any British forces anyway. But more importantly the UK was never in danger or compromised by the Taliban, and the act of war UK forces got themselves invoved in was far away from UK soil and to be frank, without much legal or moral justification.

    I'm not defending the Taliban- it was a brutal and hideous regime. All I'm saying is that I rather doubt those men have broken any UK laws, let alone being guilty of high treason.
Sign In or Register to comment.