Freed Brits "Had Terror Training"

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Freed Brits "Had Terror Training"
24
Thu, 03-18-2004 - 9:14pm
URSOC Two

18 March, 2004

The Sun claims that four of the five British prisoners recently released from Guantanamo Bay had been trained in guerilla combat by the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.

http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/378/Freed_Brits__Had_Terror_Training_.html


The report is based on information sent from US investigators at the Sun's request, detailing the background and history of the former detainees. All four have denied links with terror groups and have been treated by Britain's media as homecoming "innocents abroad", relieved to be back in Blighty after their two-year ordeal at the hands of their wicked US captors. Their claims of torture and mistreatment (strongly denied by US and British officials) have been used by some newspapers to undermine the war effort, and Britain's close alliance with the US in particular.

Few have questioned their stories of what they were doing in Taliban and al-Qaeda dominated Afghanistan in the first place.

The Sun reports that government insiders, including some ministers, opposed the prisoners' release but were overruled by Tony Blair. The Telegraph also reports that off-record, British officials agree the four are not so innocent, but play down claims of close al-Qaeda involvement. The Telegraph also claims that officials dispute the Sun's claims of a trans-Atlantic divide over the prisoners' release.

As the Sun asserts, nothing is proven against the four men. But in any case, Britain's security forces are said to be keeping the four under tabs, at a cost of £1 million a year.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 03-21-2004 - 5:00pm
Sorry. It's so rarely we agree on anything, it didn't occur to me that you were confirming what I posted. Thanks.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2003
Sun, 03-21-2004 - 8:38pm
The Sun is not a reliable source and often gets things wrong or confused. They could have meant "terrier training". Bush warned us of the danger of terriers when he said "We cannot let terriers and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile." I, for one do not want to held hostile by a bunch of fanatical terriers. It's about time someone warned the British that the terriers are coming. The Sun could be the modern day British version of Paul Revere.

Perhaps terriers aren't all bad. Since then, the enterprising Bush did find aother use for those terriers. They're great as bowling balls apparently. In September of 2002 Bush gave us a demonstration when he used his 16 pound terrier, Barney, to demonstrate by giving him a nice toss.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 11:30am
Puppies

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 12:58pm
The NYT's gets it wrong all the time, but that doesn't stop left-wingers from reading it as the bible.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 8:50am
Nor does it stop conservatives from lieing through there teeth.
Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:10am
Oh c'mon, I'm a conservative and I don't lie.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:21am

My point wasn't that you lie, my point was that saying the NYT is lieing or covering the truth is no more true then those who say that all conservatives lie.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 4:43pm
If that's the case, why do so many people on this board, swallow the liberal bias without even noticing, but when I post something with a conservative slant, there is a hewn cry about it?

I don't think you were around a few months ago when an article that used the term 'pro-abortion' instead of 'pro-choice' was immediately pounced on for using biased language while the same people had been reading articles for years which referred to the 'pro-life' position as 'anti-abortion' without it ever crossing their minds that that was biased, too.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 6:19pm

>"while the same people had been reading articles for years which referred to the 'pro-life' position as 'anti-abortion' without it ever crossing their minds that that was biased, too."<


Excuse me how would YOU know what other posters think. BTW you are WRONG!


You're refering to this thread..........

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 03-24-2004 - 10:13am
Well then if you'll realized the bias of the mainstream press, why all the uproar when one time you finally run across a story written from an opposite point of view?

Renee