Binyam Mohamed al Habashi was born in Ethiopia on 24 July 1978.
In 1994 he arrived in the UK and sought asylum on the basis of his family’s opposition to the Ethiopian government.
His application was rejected, but in 2000 he was given exceptional leave to remain in the UK for four years.
Living in North Kensington, west London, Mr Mohamed worked as a cleaner and studied electrical and electronics engineering.
In 2001 – the year he converted to Islam – Mr Mohamed travelled to Pakistan, and then Afghanistan. What he was doing there was the crux of his legal battle.
According to Mr Mohamed, he wanted to kick a drug habit and get away from familiar haunts in London.
He says that he also wanted to see whether Taleban-run Afghanistan was a good Islamic country – a path followed by other young Muslim men who were fascinated by events in that war-torn region.
US authorities, however, said that while in Afghanistan Mr Mohamed fought on the front line against anti-Taleban Northern Alliance forces.
They claim he was cherry-picked by al-Qaeda because of his UK residency, and received firearms and explosives training alongside British shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Prosecutors claimed he planned to travel to the US, rent several flats in an apartment block and then blow it up with a timing device
OK. Now I know all the arguments about not reducing ourselves to the level of our opponents and all that good stuff (Though it must be pointed out that nobody actually beheaded the poor soul as far as we know) But why exactly are we getting in such a lather about this guy?
I’m sorry about the ‘we’ I’d guess I mean the media and the civil rights industry rather than the populous in general.
My view? George Orwell summed it up
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready
in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
Moggy
By: Bmused55 - 15th February 2010 at 12:22
I think our point is that ‘the authorities’ simply aren’t getting on with it. They should be booting the guy out of the country as quickly as humanly possible.
Moggy
Fair enough. You do have point there.
Like that Cleric down south, Abu Hamza or similar.
Openly commits treason on the streets, yet still collects cheques from the social!
Should have been deported years ago.
Like the Australian Prime Minister once said:
“No one forced you to come here, if you don’t like it, leave.”
By: Blue_2 - 15th February 2010 at 11:47
I think our point is that ‘the authorities’ simply aren’t getting on with it. They should be booting the guy out of the country as quickly as humanly possible.
Moggy
No…quicker than that please!
By: Red Hunter - 15th February 2010 at 06:52
Precisely.
By: Moggy C - 15th February 2010 at 01:02
I think our point is that ‘the authorities’ simply aren’t getting on with it. They should be booting the guy out of the country as quickly as humanly possible.
Moggy
By: Bmused55 - 14th February 2010 at 19:24
What I meant is, let the authorities get on with it.
By: Red Hunter - 14th February 2010 at 18:59
Bemused55
I really do not understand the whole hoo-haa about this Mohamed person.
In what way do you not understand it?
By: Red Hunter - 14th February 2010 at 17:19
In an attempt to bring the thread back on course and to comment accordingly it appears that, until EPGH’s intervention, we all agreed with Moggy about the affair!
By: Grey Area - 14th February 2010 at 17:01
Moderator Message
I think it’s high time we brought this thread back on-topic.
EGPH, if you wish to continue to discuss your rather…… personal….. interpretation of the recent history of Northern Ireland, then please do so in a new thread rather than hijacking someone else’s. This thread was created to discuss the case of Binyam Mohamed.
For the record – and this should not be taken as endorsement of, or agreement with, the content of any particular posting or postings – I see no breach of the site owners code of conduct anywhere in this thread.
Whether or not the bounds of good taste and/or respectability have been breached is, however, another matter entirely.
Those who disagree with any of the above are perfectly at liberty to raise the matter directly with the Webmaster.
Thanks
GA
By: Grey Area - 14th February 2010 at 14:10
Moderator Message
I sometimes wish mine worked…… :rolleyes:
Look, chaps, add people to your ‘ignore’ lists as and whenever you like – but ‘I’ve put you on my ignore list, so there!’ postings do smack rather more of the playground than of mature discussion.
Any more will be deemed off-topic, and will be deleted without further warning.
Come on, chaps. You’re better than this.
GA
By: Grey Area - 14th February 2010 at 12:03
Kev35, I think you know that saying you condone terrorism on an internet forum is not likely to work for you very well and the mods could very well throw you out.
Now, just hold on a minute!!! 😡
To the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever been banned or ejected from these forums purely for voicing an unpopular or unconventional opinion in a manner that does not breach
the site owners’ code of conduct.
Please either quote an example, or withdraw your comment.
By: old shape - 13th February 2010 at 22:45
I do apologise.
I just can’t bear anti-west opinions spouted, we only allow it because we are civilised, unlike the anti west countries and supporters.
By: Grey Area - 13th February 2010 at 22:41
Moderator Message
I have just deleted a posting because it contained a personal attack on another member.
Let that be the last one, please.
Discuss the subject of the thread, not one another.
Thanks
GA
By: Gooney Bird - 12th February 2010 at 21:19
I too think Moggy is spot on…..
By: hindenburg - 12th February 2010 at 20:50
couldn`t have put it better myself..well said Moggy…there are certain organisations who would have tortured him and left him floating in The Med.
By: Blue_2 - 12th February 2010 at 19:50
That argument is irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter, like those who argued that we supported Saddam in the Iraq/Iran wars. It is in the nature of nations’ relationships with each other that your friend will one day become your enemy and probably your friend again. And so it has been for two millenia.
The only relevant position is who are your enemies and your friends at any given time. Think Stalin and WW2 and you’ll get the picture.
Think European politics for the last few hundred years too…
By: Red Hunter - 12th February 2010 at 13:26
That argument is irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter, like those who argued that we supported Saddam in the Iraq/Iran wars. It is in the nature of nations’ relationships with each other that your friend will one day become your enemy and probably your friend again. And so it has been for two millenia.
The only relevant position is who are your enemies and your friends at any given time. Think Stalin and WW2 and you’ll get the picture.
By: slipperysam - 12th February 2010 at 13:18
If he went to Afghanistan and was captured mixing with terrorists, sorry but he deserves all he gets. What other legitimate reason could he have for being there? It’s not like he can claim he just popped out for some fresh air, after all…
It amazes me how history is distorted and forgotten….
1) The Taliban was the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan, it never has been a “terrorist” organisation, nor has it ever been delcared one by the USA.
2) The USA provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the Taliban run government for humanitarian aide prior the invasion.
3) The USA INVADED Afghanistan to supposedly find “Osama”… remember him?
4) The Taliban is fighting an invading force… and as such can fight it anyway it pleases…
Thats right WE INVADED THEM…. The holier then thou attitude is amazing.
Do we also forget that the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the late 1970s/ early 80s (at the request of the Afghan government) and that the USA then provided money and weapons to them (those wanting to throw out the afghan government) to repel “those commie *******s”….
So please explain who the terrorist supporters were? The USSR or the USA ?
By: Moggy C - 12th February 2010 at 13:13
The UK does not condone torture, a stance most people here would agree with. However, the static that has been created by the court case here has obscured several key questions
1) Who paid for his travel to Pakistan? It would seem unlikely that he could afford it.
2) Why was he travelling on a false passport? (and why has he not been prosecuted for that?)
3) Where did he obtain the false passport? Innocent people rarely know how to get one.
4) What exactly did he do, and where exactly did he go, and who exactly did he meet while abroad?
5) If he is not prosecuted for using a false passport, how can we consider prosecuting a British security officer?
6) What exactly is his current status to remain in the UK? And given that he evidently feels safe enough to travel to unstable parts of the world, how is it justified?
All of these questions appear to have been kicked into the long grass whilst we worry about this guy’s treatment by the cousins.
Moggy
(I am indebted to PW from another place for the accurate summary of the questions that need answering that I have cut and pasted above)
By: Blue_2 - 12th February 2010 at 10:20
If he went to Afghanistan and was captured mixing with terrorists, sorry but he deserves all he gets. What other legitimate reason could he have for being there? It’s not like he can claim he just popped out for some fresh air, after all…
By: Red Hunter - 12th February 2010 at 09:55
Totally agree. And that quotation is so apt. I think it has been similarly attributed to Churchill.
To, clarify as my post appears to agree with the post above, whereas it is Moggy’s post with which I totally agree.
Sign In
February 12, 2010 at 9:37 am