MilitaryForums.co.uk

Er, except that ... "However, the court in Hamburg ruled there was no proof that he knew about the 11 September 2001 plot."

i.e. 7 years because the court found he wasn't involved in killing thousands. Unless you think that it would be a good idea to change Habeus Corpus to Guilt By Association, Mark?

A lot of the stuff being said here is all well and good to vent on an internet forum, but if anyone actually put it into practice the UK would stop being the oldest surviving democracy in the world and the basis of the Western legal system, and start looking more like Iraq under our old friend until recently residing in a ditch.

he was definatly involved, if he was innocent he would be a free man

he signed the will of Atta - believed to be the ringleader of the 19 suicide hijackers - and held power of attorney on the bank account of another hijacker.

obviously he never had an inkling something was planned then

whats the difference between knowing about the attack(which he obviously did) and carrying it out

its not a rant to see a poor innocent muslim banged up, just a harsher sentance for a man found guilty in a court of law

if as you say he isnt involved what was he charged and found guilty of?

While the hijackers were attending flight training schools in the US, he used that power of attorney to handle the transfer of small amounts of money for them.

Motassadek had also admitted attending an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in early 2000.

poor innocent man, he was only being a "good muslim"

Sorry mate, but none of that shows he knew about the 9/11 plan. Several friends I know (my age, thus not at death's door) have wills, and my father has power of attorney over various stuff of mine...am I or they about to bomb London, I wonder? This, however, is a ridiculous debate. Neither of us know bollocks about the case, we are just quoting a news article back and forth, which may be wrong in the first place. There was a trial (two, in fact) and the legal system has found that he wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks, but that he was guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation. He has been convicted and sentenced for the latter.

The court might be wrong and he may be guilty of both, or he might be innocent of everything, both have happened before (you might want to ask the Guilford Four what they think of 'if he was innocent he would be a free man'); the legal system isn't perfect, but it's constantly being improved, and is a damn sight better than convicting people by mob opinion or because it is likely they were guilty of something.

They found him guilty of belonging to a terror cell. That means that, although he met with people who shared his beliefs, he was not directly part of a plot or knew anything about 9/11. He was on trial for being connected with the hijackers, not with the attacks. There would have been dozens who knew that Atta and co were terrorists, but only a few would have known they were palnning something. It has even been suggested that only the pilots knew what the targets were, along with planners such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Zacarour al Moussarri, the '20th hijacker' didnt even know what was planned. The hijackers themselves didnt even know the full details of the plot untill only a couple of months before the attacks. They believed that it was just a hijacking, although they had previously volunteered for 'martyrdom'.

He has visited a Osama Bin Laden run camp in Afghanistan for training, but had not been selected for terrorism. He was probably only trained in crude guerrilla tactics to fight in Chechnya or the Balkans.

Rather than create a new thread for this, I thought it was relevant enough for this one.

Speaking of religious extremists nutjobs, they aren't confined solely to the Islamic faith.

http://www.luciferia.tv/

A brief quote:


"2: The Separation of the Wheat from the Chaff.
One shall be taken and one shall be left behind.

10,000 stadia of blood shall be demanded.

Who is to live and who is to die?


In the Final Holocaust the following categories shall be executed.

It is forbidden to suffer any of these vermin to live.



1: The Governmentalists.

2: The Usuryists / Monetarists / Capitalists & State Capitalists (i.e., Marxists) / State Monetarists.

3: The nationalists.

4: The religionists/ritualists/cultists.

5: The anti-Communists (anti-sharers).

6: The private propertyists.

7: All who are not 'against' the aforementioned.

____________________________





What is to be done and how it is to be done.

Sentencing Guidelines:



The Chaff shall be cast into the fires of the Final Holocaust. Execution of the above categories is mandatory.



Public Execution.

Preferably, their throats shall be cut, their hearts and bowels torn out and given to the beasts of the field and fowls of the air as prey; their bodies shall be quartered, and shall be burned to ashes, the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven. Their property shall be burnt, their livestock slaughtered; all generations of their family must be and shall be executed, 'especially' the women and children; execute these vermin before they can breed, asides from they who are known ‘opponents’ of governmentalism/religion; they who are not against such vermin must be considered to be ’for’ them. The eradication of their entire lineages is mandatory. The evil of the parents cannot pass on to the children if the children are purged. Even they who so much as fill their inkwells. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth shall not make the whole world blind if it applies only to the aforementioned categories of criminal vermin; many are they who are innocent.



Even so much as offering a glass of water to the above shall be deemed the sin of collaboration. "



You know, its odd - that diatribe has over 56,000 words, and "NUTCASE" doesn't feature even once.