Innocent Guantanamo detainees speak out on abuse, murder.

Dear Derek
Every man is entitled to his opinion. No man is entitled to be wrong in
his facts.
Were you to click on show options you would see why I did not vote
for that bumbling idiot.
Regards
Bill Hatfield

Derek Copeland wrote:
Perhaps your remarks would be better directed at President
Bush,

---------------------------------
Hi Don (the universal expert on everything!).
Well at least he makes sense


We clash on another forum. I think that President Bush
would be too thick to understand my remarks anyway!
Well, given the quality of your arguments, it may not be entirely his fault.


I should make clear that most Americans, the ones I
have met anyway, are nice, likable people.
That should please them, I am sure.

How they collectively (although very marginally) managed to
elect George 'W' as President is therefore quite beyond
me!
If I am not mistaken, he plays in a game called politics and happens to
be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. Hardly a "bumbling
idiot", no matter what one thinks of his actions.


But then I thought that Bill Clinton was a good,
intelligent and sensible President (well he was partly
educated in the UK)
I am sure Bill is heartened by your approval.


whereas I gather the US 'Moral
Majority' didn't think much of him. I don't think much
of Tony Blair either by the way.
And bad luck to Tony.


We Brits. are extremely grateful for America's help
in World War II, without which we would probably now
be living in a totalitarian state, controlled by Germany.
Obviously we are more than happy to return the help
wherever we can, but only for legitimate wars.
It is reassuring to find people who can so confidently speak on behalf
of the nation as a whole. Or does the "we" refer only to the aged
"white Anglo-Saxons" (from your previous post)and not the more recent
immigrants that might not have been about back then and consequently
might not feel the same level of gratitude that you seem to express on
behalf of all.


The war against Iraq was never sanctioned by the United
Nations. In my opinion Saddam Hussain was more of a
blusterer than an actual threat to anybody outside
his own country.
Perhaps you could suggested it to the Iranians, 1.5 million dead, 100000
of that due to the weapons of mass destruction(Wikipedia) or Kuwaitis,
or the Kurds, but technically the latter were inside Iraq, so I may
concede that point. But as you say, he is just a blusterer.


While the UN weapons inspectors were
in Iraq and apparently making progress the Allies should
never have declared war on Iraq!

I never thought that invading Iraq would defeat 'Terrorism',
or make things better for the Iraqi people. In fact
it seems to have had entirely the opposite effects,
as so many Muslims were so angered by it, that they
are queuing up to be suicide bombers, even British
born ones!
Think of the Palestinian suicide bombers, the 9-11, sadly the queuing
was well and truly happening prior to the invasion of Iraq. Once the
ones with power and motives realised what an effective weapon they had,
it was always only a question of time.



Anyway, end of rant, but preventing the war was something
I cared passionately about at the time. I did all that
I could by writing letters to politicians and newspapers,
as well as taking part in protest marches - something
I would never normally do by the way
Well, if they were as well argued as your last two postings here, I am
not at all surprised that you did not convince anyone.



One consequence of 9/11 and the Iraq war, is that all
European based gliders over a MTOW of 500kg now have
to be insured at considerable extra cost against being
used for terrorist attacks.
Terrible, lets not worry about the draconian laws being enacted anywhere
and the subsequent loss of liberties taken for granted in western
democracies for a considerable period of time, lets concentrate on what
is really important - the rising cost of glider insurance.

Somehow I can't imagine
that flying a Duo Discus into the Houses of Parliament
would do all that much damage!
True, but how about the 100 kg of high explosives strapped in the back
seat? Hmmmm, what an attack platform, stealthy, hard to see and joy to
fly. Any terrorist would kill to use it.


So please, leave RAS free of your political passions, or at least mount
a better argument.

Cheers

Paul Bart

At 23:36 21 November 2005, Bill wrote:
Dear Derek
Every man is entitled to his opinion. No man is entitled
to be wrong in
his facts.
Were you to click on you would see why I did not vote
for that bumbling idiot.
Regards
Bill Hatfield
----------------
Bill,

I guess from your E-mail address that you must be from
the land of Shelaghs, Sheep, Kangaroos, Holden cars
and decent gliding weather (unlike the UK). Fair dinkum
cobber.

Cheers,
Derek C

At 14:42 22 November 2005, Paul wrote:

'Somehow I can't imagine
that flying a Duo Discus into the Houses of Parliament
would do all that much damage!'
True, but how about the 100 kg of high explosives strapped
in the back seat? Hmmmm, what an attack platform,
stealthy, hard to see and joy to fly. Any terrorist
would kill to use it.
--------------------
Please don't say things like that Paul, or the cost
of our insurance will go up even more.

So far I haven't had any students of Middle-Eastern
appearance asking to learn how to fly gliders, but
not how to land them!

I believe that one of the 9/11 pilots told a flying
school in the States precisely that for a Boeing 757.
That surely ought to have rang a few alarm bells, as
suicide missions are the only flights where an ability
to land is not really necessary!

Cheers,
Del Copeland

Derek old mate
You`re dead right there,espescially about the weather.
If you ever foregoe those rainy plains and drop into Oz a Duo or a Lak
will be at your disposal and we can sort out the worlds problems over a
bottle of Bundaberg Rum-after the gliding.
Regards
Bill

Please take your French-quoting, pinko-commie views to the proper
forum. This is not that forum. This is the soaring forum. That's as
simple as I can make it.

Jack Womack
my real name

Derek Copeland wrote:

Bill,

I guess from your E-mail address that you must be from
the land of Shelaghs, Sheep, Kangaroos, Holden cars
and decent gliding weather (unlike the UK). Fair dinkum
cobber.

Another well-argued, thought-provoking, British contribution to the
discussion.

Where DO they get these people from???

GC

Cheers,
Derek C

Derek Copeland wrote:
At 14:42 22 November 2005, Paul wrote:

'Somehow I can't imagine
that flying a Duo Discus into the Houses of Parliament
would do all that much damage!'

True, but how about the 100 kg of high explosives strapped
in the back seat? Hmmmm, what an attack platform,

stealthy, hard to see and joy to fly. Any terrorist
would kill to use it.
--------------------
Please don't say things like that Paul, or the cost
of our insurance will go up even more.

Glad I did not mention the nitroglycerine in the wing tanks then ...

On a more serious note though, I do not think that the interested
parties need to learn anything from me. I am sure that the leaders are
a highly intelligent lot (if misguided, in my view) and can figure it
all out for them selves. If not, they can pickup any number of books
written by respected authors that will give them far better ideas then I
will. Meticulously researched howtos can be found in number of popular
books. Was there not a book by Tom Clancy where someone flew a 747 into
Capitol Hill?

And sorry about the rather nasty tone of my initial e-mail.

Cheers

Paul







So far I haven't had any students of Middle-Eastern
appearance asking to learn how to fly gliders, but
not how to land them!

I believe that one of the 9/11 pilots told a flying
school in the States precisely that for a Boeing 757.
That surely ought to have rang a few alarm bells, as
suicide missions are the only flights where an ability
to land is not really necessary!

Cheers,
Del Copeland