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

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Wed, 03-24-2004 - 10:39am

I think the "hewn cry" is fairly even on both sides, when something is posted with a "liberal" slant it is bashed as being "just liberal trash" by some on this board and vice versa.


Well I don't want to restart a debate I wasn't even here for, but to me saying "pro-abortion" is very different than saying "pro-choice" while saying "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" is really saying the same thing to me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 03-24-2004 - 2:42pm

>" why all the uproar when one time you finally run across a story written from an opposite point of view? "<


Numerous times 'someone' has pointed out an article has been too liberal or has come from a liberal source 'they' don't approve. Fine, it's a free country.


The >"opposite point of view"< you mention is a distorted & insulting phrase to people that are Pro-choice. I realize you didn't use it but it showed the mentality of the writer of the article.


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 03-24-2004 - 5:45pm
(n/t)

cl-nwtreehugger



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 03-24-2004 - 5:49pm

Well I don't want to restart a debate I wasn't even here for, but to me saying "pro-abortion" is very different than saying "pro-choice" while saying "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" is really saying the same thing to me.


Pages