Omar Deghayes to return to Brighton

[The Large One]

I think your mud slinging about 'white bigot' is childish and inconsistent, as discussion involves opinions and as you too cant present facts then I guess by your own childish standards that makes you a bigot too.

I have to unfortuantely go to a meeting now but look forward to returning and then I can really get stuck into you !!!

You can really get stuck into me? Is that what's important to you today?

You're possibly right about me calling you a bigot - I should have kept that fact to myself.

No, I can't present facts about Omar, but then again, I never said I was going to. As I've now said three times - he might be involved in terrorism, he might not be. Who knows? I don't. The key question is - do you? The whole point I was making was that no-one knows the facts - I have neither defended him nor condemned him - but that is not stopping you from saying that he is not welcome in 'your' community. Based on what? Circumstance? Hearsay? Irrefutible evidence?

You don't know what's wholly going on - nor do I - but you have already condemned him. You then have the neck to call me 'wrong' and 'naive' and 'childish'. That, too, is not the way to conduct a discussion.

I haven't presented an opinion on Omar because I don't know enough. I have asked you twice now. So, please, if you're going to present an opinion on Omar, can you let us know you're basing it on.

So far, we have the fact he is a Libyan muslim who obtained refugee status in the UK and subsequently visited Pakistan, together with a newspaper article about his - admittedly radical - brother. Is there anything else we have missed, or is that it?

 

[BigGully]

You can really get stuck into me? Is that what's important to you today?

You're possibly right about me calling you a bigot - I should have kept that fact to myself.

No, I can't present facts about Omar, but then again, I never said I was going to. As I've now said three times - he might be involved in terrorism, he might not be. Who knows? I don't. The key question is - do you? The whole point I was making was that no-one knows the facts - I have neither defended him nor condemned him - but that is not stopping you from saying that he is not welcome in 'your' community. Based on what? Circumstance? Hearsay? Irrefutible evidence?

You don't know what's wholly going on - nor do I - but you have already condemned him. You then have the neck to call me 'wrong' and 'naive' and 'childish'. That, too, is not the way to conduct a discussion.

I haven't presented an opinion on Omar because I don't know enough. I have asked you twice now. So, please, if you're going to present an opinion on Omar, can you let us know you're basing it on.

So far, we have the fact he is a Libyan muslim who obtained refugee status in the UK and subsequently visited Pakistan, together with a newspaper article about his - admittedly radical - brother. Is there anything else we have missed, or is that it?

You see that is the point, your admission that he might be involved in terrorism or he might not is the critical point here. To recognise a risk is an acknowledgement that we must treat this man with extreme caution.

One thing is for sure his profile and his brothers profile and his visit to Pakistan does heighten the likelihood of him being radical at the very least.

Now in normal times being a radical in itself should not be enough to detain him agreed.

However at a time when young British Muslims many being recruited by foreign extremists and being trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan training camps so that they can come back to their own Country and commit jihad on our streets makes this debate far more serious than your current stance where anyone that hold concerns should be considered a 'white bigot'.

This thread started with a celebration of the fact that Omar is to return to Sussex.

I will not be joining the party thank you.

 

[The Large One]

You see that is the point, your admission that he might be involved in terrorism or he might not is the critical point here. To recognise a risk is an acknowledgement that we must treat this man with extreme caution.

One thing is for sure his profile and his brothers profile and his visit to Pakistan does heighten the likelihood of him being radical at the very least.

Now in normal times being a radical in itself should not be enough to detain him agreed.

However at a time when young British Muslims many being recruited by foreign extremists and being trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan training camps so that they can come back to their own Country and commit jihad on our streets makes this debate far more serious than your current stance where anyone that hold concerns should be considered a 'white bigot'.

This thread started with a celebration of the fact that Omar is to return to Sussex.

I will not be joining the party thank you.

Hang on - I don't know if he's a risk, but I'm taking my cue from the authorities who are releasing him that, somewhere down the line, his risk status does not warrant further incarceration - if it ever did in the first place.

This bit is supposition, and I admit it, but possibly one of the reasons he has been in Guantanamo for so long is that no government was prepared to vouch for him. Not the UK's because he is not a British subject, nor Libya, who excuted his father and would have no desire to see him back on their soil - not that he would want to go. The British detainess were released a while ago. What's to say Omar would not have been release at the same time if he were British? But that's a separate issue.

But you're taking the line that the doubt over any involvement is effectively a statement of 'guilty until proved innocent', especially in the case of British Muslims - not that there were any doubts before he was picked up in Pakistan. You evidently consider muslims with extreme suspicion. But how can you prove innocence?

I hold concerns as much as you do about young, gullible British muslims going to training camps etc, but my point about white bigotry isn't to do with that, it's to do with the fact that you assume Omar's guilt, and that justice and due process of law can go f*** itself in the case of Omar, and that you're happy for him to be locked up because he is a Muslim, and therefore a terrorist threat.

His 'profile' of being a Libyan Muslim who fled persecution and subsequently visited Pakistan is not in itself a reason to have been incarcerated for five years. His brother might well have certain views that some find abhorrent, but then (assuming you have a brother) is it right that you going to be judged on what your brother does?

 

[Simster]

I hope he is not paraded about Brighton like some kind of hero and he is put on trial where he can then state his defence.

Ernest, let's just try and appeal to your sense of humanity.

You may feel you are absolutely right to question what he was doing in Pakistan at the time of being picked up (there is nothing wrong with cynicism from time to time), but the fact is that this man has done absolutely nothing wrong. And yet, he has been banged up for five years without trial seemingly because of the whim of someone in the USA who decided he was a terrorist threat - without feeling the need to provide any evidence.

For me, it's like arresting a skinhead for going to a football match at Christmas because he looks like a trouble maker, so keeping him in prison without legal representation until the end of the football season, and then nobody giving a toss about his plight when they next see him in the ground the following season.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

One thing is for sure his profile and his brothers profile and his visit to Pakistan does heighten the likelihood of him being radical at the very least.

.

what profile is that?

Probably the same "profile" that makes a peadiatrician a peadophile?

Where are you getting your "evidence " from about this person...a Times article? If the Americans, who kept him incacerated for 5 years without trial have let him go as they cannot find any evidence that he is a risk, what makes you so sure of your argument.

 

[BigGully]

Hang on - I don't know if he's a risk, but I'm taking my cue from the authorities who are releasing him that, somewhere down the line, his risk status does not warrant further incarceration - if it ever did in the first place.

This bit is supposition, and I admit it, but possibly one of the reasons he has been in Guantanamo for so long is that no government was prepared to vouch for him. Not the UK's because he is not a British subject, nor Libya, who excuted his father and would have no desire to see him back on their soil - not that he would want to go. The British detainess were released a while ago. What's to say Omar would not have been release at the same time if he were British? But that's a separate issue.

But you're taking the line that the doubt over any involvement is effectively a statement of 'guilty until proved innocent', especially in the case of British Muslims - not that there were any doubts before he was picked up in Pakistan. You evidently consider muslims with extreme suspicion. But how can you prove innocence?

I hold concerns as much as you do about young, gullible British muslims going to training camps etc, but my point about white bigotry isn't to do with that, it's to do with the fact that you assume Omar's guilt, and that justice and due process of law can go f*** itself in the case of Omar, and that you're happy for him to be locked up because he is a Muslim, and therefore a terrorist threat.

His 'profile' of being a Libyan Muslim who fled persecution and subsequently visited Pakistan is not in itself a reason to have been incarcerated for five years. His brother might well have certain views that some find abhorrent, but then (assuming you have a brother) is it right that you going to be judged on what your brother does?

I do not hold Muslim's with suspision, I really wish you would not misrepresent my views.

But as we are discussing any likelihood of Islamic Extremists then it does happen to be Muslims, obviously.

My argument remains that when you profile Omars family, including his own beleifs and acquaintances he might not be quite as innocent as some might wish to think.

And for that reason I still will not celebrate his return to Sussex.

 

[BigGully]

Ernest, let's just try and appeal to your sense of humanity.

You may feel you are absolutely right to question what he was doing in Pakistan at the time of being picked up (there is nothing wrong with cynicism from time to time), but the fact is that this man has done absolutely nothing wrong. And yet, he has been banged up for five years without trial seemingly because of the whim of someone in the USA who decided he was a terrorist threat - without feeling the need to provide any evidence.

For me, it's like arresting a skinhead for going to a football match at Christmas because he looks like a trouble maker, so keeping him in prison without legal representation until the end of the football season, and then nobody giving a toss about his plight when they next see him in the ground the following season.

That is just not a a valid comparison.

The effects of people that wish to bring down the Western World with indescriminate killings including on British streets and Skinheads in a Football Season is missing the point.

 

[BigGully]

what profile is that?

Probably the same "profile" that makes a peadiatrician a peadophile?

Where are you getting your "evidence " from about this person...a Times article? If the Americans, who kept him incacerated for 5 years without trial have let him go as they cannot find any evidence that he is a risk, what makes you so sure of your argument.

paediatrtion and paedophile !! Nope that is silly as that is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words whereas it is wholly valid to investigate why Omar was in Pakistan.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

My argument remains that when you profile Omars family, including his own beleifs and acquaintances he might not be quite as innocent as some might wish to think./QUOTE]

But that is all it is, your argument. There is no evidence or proof that Omar has committed any crime what so ever. You cannot base the criminal justice system on ifs, buts, maybes and supposition. You need to have facts and sound evidence, and in this case there is nothing to suggest that Omar has committed any crime and therefore should not have been arbitrarily incarcerated for FIVE years without charge.

If Omar was guilty of anything he should have been put on trial and convicted, I don't think many would have a problem with that at all.

You have to ask yourself do you stand for the rule of law or not? If not then by all means make it up as you go along and starting locking people up because you don't like the look or sound of them. Just hope it doesn't happen to you.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

paediatrtion and paedophile !! Nope that is silly as that is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words whereas it is wholly valid to investigate why Omar was in Pakistan.

I wonder if it ever occured to the gitmo interrogators to ask him about this during the five years he was interred. Do you think if he was not able to answer these enquiries satisfactorily he would have been released?

Since when was visiting pakistan an imprisonable offence?

 

[Simster]

That is just not a a valid comparison.

The effects of people that wish to bring down the Western World with indescriminate killings including on British streets and Skinheads in a Football Season is missing the point.

Why isn't it a valid comparison? A single religious maniac is as likely to bring down the Western world as a violent moron is of causing widespread disorder resulting in the deaths of innocents at a football match.

What is the point I'm missing?

 

[Ernest]

Ernest, let's just try and appeal to your sense of humanity.

You may feel you are absolutely right to question what he was doing in Pakistan at the time of being picked up (there is nothing wrong with cynicism from time to time), but the fact is that this man has done absolutely nothing wrong. And yet, he has been banged up for five years without trial seemingly because of the whim of someone in the USA who decided he was a terrorist threat - without feeling the need to provide any evidence.

For me, it's like arresting a skinhead for going to a football match at Christmas because he looks like a trouble maker, so keeping him in prison without legal representation until the end of the football season, and then nobody giving a toss about his plight when they next see him in the ground the following season.

And don't forget he has been in Afghanistan too, his profile ticks all the boxes and the simple answer is if he had stayed in Brighton then he would never have been arrested.
I say better safe than sorry and seeing he is being placed on some kind of monitoring the authorities have some doubt about him then

 

[BigGully]

Why isn't it a valid comparison? A single religious maniac is as likely to bring down the Western world as a violent moron is of causing widespread disorder resulting in the deaths of innocents at a football match.

What is the point I'm missing?

It is still not a vaild comparison.

Guatanamo, Afghanistan, Islamic Jihad, 9/11, 7/11 Glasgow Airprot bombings, suicide bombings, these aren't about an individual its a against a frighteningly dangerous and vicious Islamic Movement that is, has and wish to continue to wreak death and mayhem throughout the non-Islamic World....


I am arguing that Omar might be part of this ideal and something that we must be extremely vigilant against.

To trivialise it to skinheads at a football grounds is in my opinion is missing the point.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

It is still not a vaild comparison.

Guatanamo, Afghanistan, Islamic Jihad, 9/11, 7/11 Glasgow Airprot bombings, suicide bombings, these aren't about an individual its a against a frighteningly dangerous and vicious Islamic Movement that is, has and wish to continue to wreak death and mayhem throughout the non-Islamic World....


I am arguing that Omar might be part of this ideal and something that we must be extremely vigilant against.

To trivialise it to skinheads at a football grounds is in my opinion is missing the point.

The operative work in that statement is "MIGHT"

You are judging him on something you have read in a Times article. For all you know ( or anyone else for that matter) he may be innocent.

I come back to my point...the Americans kept him incarcerated for 5 years without trial, no doubt facing torture and everything else that goes on there and have still released him having found no reason whatsoever to keep him. Why is that not good enough for you?

 

[sten]

www.TheReligionofPeace.com

Excellent. And about time.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7133760.stm

UK Guantanamo four to be released

Four of the five British residents who are being held at Guantanamo Bay are to be released, the BBC has learned.

The government requested the release of all five men from the US detention camp in August after previously refusing to intervene on behalf of non-UK citizens.

Jamil el-Banna, Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Samuer will come back to the UK, while Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer will return to his native Saudi Arabia.

The detainees are not British citizens but lived in the UK before being held.

Intensive negotiations

The fifth man, Ethiopian Binyam Mohammed al Habashi, will remain at Guantanamo.

THE FIVE DETAINEES

Omar Deghayes, Libyan with refugee status
Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, Saudi Arabian granted indefinite leave to remain
Jamil el-Banna, Jordanian with refugee status
Binyam Mohammed al Habashi, Ethiopian asylum seeker
Abdulnour Sameur, Algerian with leave to remain

British and US authorities have been in intensive negotiations about their return over the past few months despite the Pentagon insisting the men are all dangerous.

The US is seeking reassurances that they will not pose any security threat.

The Americans accuse Mr el-Banna of being a prominent al-Qaeda recruiter and financier, Libyan Mr Deghayes of associating with al-Qaeda, and Algerian Mr Sameur of receiving combat training in Afghanistan.

An official announcement on the releases is expected in the next few weeks.

The Conservatives have been asking the government whether they think the three men returning to the UK pose a threat and if so what security precautions will be taken when they return.

The men have all either been granted refugee status, indefinite leave or exceptional leave to remain in the UK.

Camp closure

Foreign Secretary David Miliband formally wrote to his US counterpart Condoleezza Rice with the request for the men's release.

Last year the Court of Appeal upheld the government's decision not to request the return of non-British nationals because the US said it would not negotiate with third countries.

The Foreign Office also said such a move would be counterproductive to its aim of securing the closure of Guantanamo.

The foreign secretary and the home secretary said they requested the release of the men because of steps taken by the US government towards shutting down the detention facility.

The government said all British nationals had been released from Guantanamo by January 2005.

The detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba was created in early 2002 to hold suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan.

Suggest you do a bit of reading before celebrating too much, link at the top.

 

[BigGully]

Ernest, let's just try and appeal to your sense of humanity.

You may feel you are absolutely right to question what he was doing in Pakistan at the time of being picked up (there is nothing wrong with cynicism from time to time), but the fact is that this man has done absolutely nothing wrong. And yet, he has been banged up for five years without trial seemingly because of the whim of someone in the USA who decided he was a terrorist threat - without feeling the need to provide any evidence.

For me, it's like arresting a skinhead for going to a football match at Christmas because he looks like a trouble maker, so keeping him in prison without legal representation until the end of the football season, and then nobody giving a toss about his plight when they next see him in the ground the following season.

It is really exasperating when you throw the words 'humanity' and 'bigot' at people that reasonably argue that Omar has some explaining to do in respect of his conduct prior to Guatanamo, as does his Brother by the way.

You really do not hold the morale high ground...sorry to disappoint your delusion.

Of course if he doesnt pose a threat and he has no intention of supporting terrorism and had no previous link, then I will concur that he has been treated unfairly, but I am not convinced and certainly do not subscribe to this unreserved celebration of his freedom.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

www.TheReligionofPeace.com

Suggest you do a bit of reading before celebrating too much, link at the top.

so by that logic all muslims are rabid terrorists and are going to kill all of us?

 

[BigGully]

The operative work in that statement is "MIGHT"

You are judging him on something you have read in a Times article. For all you know ( or anyone else for that matter) he may be innocent.

I come back to my point...the Americans kept him incarcerated for 5 years without trial, no doubt facing torture and everything else that goes on there and have still released him having found no reason whatsoever to keep him. Why is that not good enough for you?

It isnt good enough for me, because I am not convinced that Omar is this innocent soul that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nor do our Government by the way.

If he was part Al Qaeda then I have no qualms for him to be incarcerated for 5 years.


None whatsover and if this is the case I would deport him as well...........as are some of the others....

But this love in to welcome back is in my view bizaare

 

[Simster]

It is still not a vaild comparison.

Guatanamo, Afghanistan, Islamic Jihad, 9/11, 7/11 Glasgow Airprot bombings, suicide bombings, these aren't about an individual its a against a frighteningly dangerous and vicious Islamic Movement that is, has and wish to continue to wreak death and mayhem throughout the non-Islamic World....


I am arguing that Omar might be part of this ideal and something that we must be extremely vigilant against.

To trivialise it to skinheads at a football grounds is in my opinion is missing the point.

I'm not trivialising it at all - I'm simply putting it into a more familiar context. Of course we have to guard against extremism, but at what cost? Democracy and justice it seems - the very principles we are supposed to hold so dear.

And lets not pretend that isn't the case, because otherwise this detention camp in Cuba would be on American soil - where you're not allowed to hold people for 5 years without trial.


So as for this point I am missing, could you actually explain what it is please? I just happen to disagree with you as far as I can see.

 

[sten]

so by that logic all muslims are rabid terrorists and are going to kill all of us?

That was quick reading