MovieChat Forums > The Road to Guantanamo (2006) Discussion > So two of the three now admit to attendi...

So two of the three now admit to attending terroist training camps.


This is film is based on the Tipton 3, three blokes from Tipton who claimed they were doing charity work in Afghanistan, well they were offered lie detector tests by Channel 4, one of them refused to take it and one admitted that they attended terrorist camps, so basically this film is a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_Three

"In 2007 two members of the Tipton Three - Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul - agreed to participate in the Channel 4 documentary Lie Lab in an attempt to prove their innocence of allegations made by the US Government. The technology used on the show was developed by Professor Sean Spence from the University of Sheffield. It uses Functional magnetic resonance imaging to look at the activity in the pre frontal cortex to determine the truthfulness of statements[14]. Having previously claimed that he had entered Afghanistan for the purposes of carrying out charity work, Ruhal Ahmed admitted on the programme that he had visited an Islamist training camp, where he handled weapons and learned how to use an AK47. Rasul refused to go through with the test.[15]"



reply

ok,
1. yes, it is a docudrama and it is "based" on the tipton 3. It is a film. To simplify a film to extreme basics, it is the director's ideas and opinions and I have never seen a film or broadcast (news included) that I would class as pure truth, and I study film and television and i've seen a lot.

2. Whether they are in reality innosent or guilt is irrelivent. They symbolise all the people who ended up in guantanamo because they thought what they were doing was right.

3. Films do not lie. They blur the lines between truths and untruths. Even films made to parody or mock contain truth.

4. You are quoting wikipedia. Honestly, anyone can edit it. If i wanted to i could write on it that the Tipton Three are Bin Larden clones. It is more unreliable than the film is. If the film portrayed individuals in false light they can be sued for slander. If someone places the same information on wikipedia they might be unable to edit wikis or in time it might just get erased.

reply

QUOTE

1. Yes, it is a docudrama and it is "based" on the tipton 3 ...
2. Whether they are in reality innosent or guilt is irrelivent ...
3. Films do not lie ...
4. You are quoting wikipedia. Honestly, anyone can edit it ...

END QUOTE

1. You're wrong - it is a documentary & is meant to be seen as such.
2. You're wrong - it is solely about the Tipton Three.
3. Whether true or not your comments are irrelevant - this is a documentary.
4. Such a weak argument - their forced admissions since this documentary's release betray the lie of its content, they are guilty & should have been charged & jailed.

These are the facts.

K.

- I've seen things you people wouldn't believe -

reply

What would the charges be?


Even if they attended a training camp, it was 100% legal at the time they were there.






A formula one car may contain spoilers

reply

The charge would be "Treason" - British troops were engaged in combat in Afghanistan too at the time and as British citizens they would "in theory" have been acting against the interests of the United Kingdom by fighting with the Taliban and againt Britain's ally, America.

To be honest if they hadn't been locked up in Guantanamo for 2 years Britain may have been able to charge them with exactly that - but sadly that didn't fit the Tony Blair/George Bush plan and after 2 years getting proof that would stand up in court would be impossible...

----------------------
"If the apocalypse comes, beep me."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

cameron: are you serious? This isn't supposed to be a fiction drama....it's supposed to be a docudrama. A docudrama, unlike say a movie like Rambo, is supposed to be based on facts and true events. Its a recreation of those facts and true events. To say that whether the tipton 3 being innocent or not is irreverent is plain stupid. It is VERY relevant as this is a documentary told with reenactments.

Nobody is arguing that bad things didn't happen in Guantanamo but this is not the way to fight it. Hey, the Catholic Church is known to shelter child abusers. Lets make a movie about Pope John Paul II molesting kids and pass it off as a documentary. Do you not see that you have faulty logic???

reply

The one month that they stayed in Kabul, Afghanistan is not shown from their arrival, to their destination north towards the AQ/Taliban front lines. That one month the Tipton Three stayed in Kabul is not told which means that they were hiding something. Not doing anything in Afghanistan for nearly a month calls for suspect since one or more of them may have visited a terrorist training camp or a radical mosque where they listened to radical Islamic propaganda of what was going on.

For one thing, did they really get on the wrong bus to take them back to Pakistan after their month stay in Kabul... or did they really get on the right bus to take them to the fighting either to observe it or partake in it? Ask yourselves that question and wonder just how dubious their story to how they got captured and imprisoned is.

reply

You're right, insofar as this would make me a little less outraged, but the American treatment as it was depicted certainly didn't meet the expectations of the Geneva Convention, or the UN Charter of Human Rights.

I think the most interesting part of this film is how it plays with your expectations. Having grown up in the West, I expect, when I hear the American accents, that their ordeal is over, and the biggest shock is to hear and see the American gaolers behaving in the same manner as the Nazis did. It shocks me, because I expect what other films have shown: Americans liberating the oppressed, but to see Americans as the oppressors is a shock.

I do believe that the depictions are accurate, as they match the stories of returned Australians (and others) who were detained in Guantanamo. The more convincing proof is Obama's indictment of the prison.

Although many would use this as evidence of America's degradation, I think it just shows that we are all fallible. I don't hate the Germans, and yet I detest what was done by the Nazis in the name of Germany. In the same way, I don't hate Americans, but I still detest what was done in Guantanamo by amoral adherents to George Bush's fascism, in the name of the USA (and with the support of Australia's fascist Prime Minister at the time).

I too question why they went to Afghanistan in the first place, but I can understand their curiosity, and also have some understanding of the culture, in which it is rarely acceptable to question one's elders.

reply

Than you'd be surprised that the facist are still ruling that part of the worl...

reply

I am surprised people always say how this and that is not within the "rules". No matter if the suspect is guilty or not, even enemies should be dealt respectedly without even thinking if it's within the rules or not.

Some things like torturing a prisoner, be it physical or mental, are simply wrong way to deal with things. It's a weak way.

As soon as you show pity and respect to your enemies you get far more done in a long run.

We have seen it proven so many times that such methods as they use in these kind of situations only results in false confessions.

Soldiers who are told to carry out these kind of orders should simply say no. In any army that has a working system a soldier can decline carrying out insane orders.

Also do US soldiers really curse that much? I cursed when I was a teenager but I grew out of it. Little cursing works as a statement, cursing a lot is a sign of a weakness in my eyes.

reply

Well, lets add a little realism to the movie. Since by all real accounts, these people were suspect in terms being linked to terrorists, and that at the very least thier repeated bleating that they were not terrorists, it would stand to reason that all things being equal, that these men are not clean. Sure, it might not be enough to convict in a court, but that level of proof is not realistic in the real world. Intelligence can't get to that level of scrutiny. If nothing else, their behavior is quite suspect, and there should be enough reasonable doubt to disbelieve anything that they might say. Of course a real terrorist would make up a story about why they were there, and say that they weren't a terrorist. They would deny deny deny, and when they got a chance paint their captuers in a poor light. These accusations of mistreatment should be treated as what they truly are, propaganda. Their behavior leading up to and throughout their side of the story leads to only one logical conclusion. It is a true fanatic that can withstand the greatest pressure. A truly innocent man does not have that reserve. They would lie long before, if only to receive a small break. These men maintained their innoscence until long out of U.S. control. The true merit of this film is to show how some have been duped by our enemies into producing propaganda for them.

reply

the accusations of mistreating are propaganda? really?

why is Obama shutting down guantanamo again? no offense... but regardless of these men's innocence or guilt... guantanamo is a shady place...

open ur mind man. do u really think US govt is completely clean and fair? Your talking about the country that backs Israel no matter what inhumane bs they pull in the world.

give me a break.


HEISENBERG WAS HERE.... (I think)

(yes it's a chemistry joke so sue me!)

reply

Obama is shutting down Guantanamo? That's a laugh.

Now give me a break

reply

Actually, that's a physics joke. Good one though.

reply

How the geographical location of a person justifies torture is beyond me...

reply

In the end no one should be imprisoned without a conviction, anything otherwise is wrong and will never be right. We have plenty of criminals people we know are murderers(like the mob)but you have to actually prove it and without torture. What is left to save when the cure is worse than the disease?

reply

I hesitated using my real name on this, as everyone else seems to have a nifty handle to hide their platitudes behind... and I'd hate to have my door kicked in by DHS for being a sympathizer or some such crap, but I have to say, what's with all the speculation? Who gives a *beep* if they went to Afghanistan for a Jihad? Bombs were dropping on their native land. If Iraq started dropping bombs on Kansas, we Americans would be screaming for a Jihad too. Imagine if every person in this country knowing someone or having someone in their family who was killed by a foreign army! As for your info regarding lie detectors, well, if you knew how one worked (except the fMRI variety), then you'd see that being strapped in and having brown skin while also being Muslim would be enough for any test taker to squirm... Fail a lie detector- HEH- I scoff at the notion that these archaic devices are even worthy of mention. The results are a matter of pure interpretation and the examiners bias plays a lion's share in determining the results. But as you quoted from Wikipedia the source of the fMRI test, I suppose this is infallible and my argument not worthy of mentioning. As such, I will go back to my original stance of WHO GIVES A *beep* IF THEY HANDLED AN AK47 OR IF THEY WERE IN AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT THE INVADERS! If the shoe were on the other foot, and you were the one getting bombed back to the stone age, I'd hope you'd do the same.

reply

Small detail, they weren't from Afghanistan. They didn't even master the language to be precise.

reply


EXECUTE THE *beep*

reply