Whatever next.. they'll try and do people for owning consenting porn.
Sometimes I worry
Although I worry about the amount of censorship and what people claim is forbidden knowledge I worry about the quote from one of the released
Malik said: "As I said when I was arrested, I do not, have not and will not support terrorism in any form against innocent people."
I dislike the qualification within this statement.
So apparently he does support terrorism BUT only against people whom he believed to be guilty ?
In my book either you support terrorism or you dont, even if you agree with the stated aim of the terrorist.
I hate weasel words
Sometimes I worry
... I appreciate your concern, but remember "terrorist" is a handy label to stop sheeple thinking ... it's all about context.
The French Resistance were certainly "terrorists", and were treated as such by the Nazis.
What would you call an Iraqi (for example) who wants the soldiers who bombed his family to pieces to leave Iraq ASAP, and not neccessarily peacefully ?
OK, so maybe they're not terrorists...
OK, so maybe they're not terrorists, but the stated intention to "fight abroad" is what scares me.
Okay, so apparently they might support terrorism. You might support child pornography, but until you actually posess some, they can't arrest you for it; there's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing going on...
In today's society you're allowed to support almost anything, you're just not allowed to act upon it.
Fascists lose another battle....
Thank goodness for this verdict. It's good to see that Britain's law lords still clearly respect some form of liberty.
How long would it be before government and the Intelligence Services start hassling and jailing others for anti-establishment views and dissent. Left wingers were most likely next in this right wing crusade for political, physical and mental subservience.
"... I appreciate your concern, but remember "terrorist" is a handy label to stop sheeple thinking ... it's all about context.
The French Resistance were certainly "terrorists", and were treated as such by the Nazis.
What would you call an Iraqi (for example) who wants the soldiers who bombed his family to pieces to leave Iraq ASAP, and not neccessarily peacefully ?"
OK then. What exaclty would YOU call someone who sends 2 mentally disabled women into a crowed Iraqi marketplace wearing bomb vests, and then detonates them?
@ Jay, I think you have that all wrong,
In yesterday's society you were allowed to support almost anything, you just weren't allowed to act on it,
In Today's society, you are not allowed to support almost anything (unless it conforms to what "they" want you to, or voice anything that disagrees with what "they" want you to believe, or do anything that might bring about the highlighting of the above. And if you do believe differently go stand outside parliament with a placard saying you have a right to believe and come back and tell me how you get on.
Fear is the opiate of the masses
So why do you object to the weasel word "innocent" while happily ignoring the much weaselier word "terrorism"?
By the way, I hate the word "innocent", too, especially when the story involves random people having being killed. Firstly, they don't have any logical basis for claiming that the people were innocent; they could be undetected serial killers for all they know. Secondly, it's totally irrelevent whether they were innocent or not because all human beings have a right to life, even serial killers.
"In my book either you support terrorism or you dont, even if you agree with the stated aim of the terrorist"
So (assuming you don't support terrorism) you condemn the French resistance, the UK's Special Operations Executive and the ANC?
Problem is that once the laws are in place, suddenly lots of things are terrorism, from defending you country from fat imperialists (Iraq) to downloading mp3s. Me, I still have my Brigatte Rosse T shirt.
Malik said: "As I said when I was arrested, I do not, have not and will not support terrorism in any form against innocent people."
Er ... but what about if you deem them guilty? Is terrorism ok then?
The statement would have been more powerful (and unequivocal) had the last three words been omitted.
Re: Sometimes I worry
Exactly. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
If you saw last Sunday's Timeteam they were excavating WW2 defences on Shooter's Hill, London. In the background explanations they said that the Home Guard was expected to fight "to the last man, to the last bullet". They also said that there were plans for secret squads who's task was to hide behind the lines and disrupt the enemy until killed. If the Home Guard had used suicide bombing tactics would we now brand them as terrorists?
Re: Sometimes I worry
The quote from Malik is not a very telling one. His use of the word terrorism is not expanded upon and may differ greatly from how mainstream media and government use the word.
Saying that you support terrorism could be synonymous with saying you support the war in Iraq. The fact that he qualifies the statement with 'against innocent people' accentuates this as my example is not from a different context to the way in which he used the word.
The only difference between the war in Iraq and the most common use of the word terrorism is that it doesn't intentionally target civilians (re: innocent people). Apart from that it fits the least forgiving definition of the word that i could find rather well: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=terrorism
Take out the bit about civilians and the war in Iraq fits quite snugly, the only point of contest would be over it being unlawful.. which many people not getting arrested for terrorism argue the war in Iraq is.
As much as I enjoy bashing the war in Iraq my main point is that acting on information without any indication of intent is all round a stupid idea.
If I were him I would consider taking legal action on the grounds of discrimination as it seems to me they had no evidence of his intent and as such based their actions on his ethnic background.
Tux because he doesn't speak enough to get caught in such a trap.
I seem to remember the ANC sentancing people to necklacing because they shopped in the wrong shops, I take it that was OK becasue they where freedom fighters.
Terrorist organisations also terrorise the communities they originate within. Lets say the US (& UK pulled out of Iraq) and there was a decent goverment in place would the terrorists stop killing innocents. Like f*ck they would. Nothing is good enough till their faction are in charge of everything, and no other opinion is tolerated (remember the previous Afghan goverment)
Innocent : well according to terrorists thay have a perfect right to kill anybody they want, wheres the right to life there. I somehow doubt that even Bush has such a crap foreign policy additionally I don't seem to remember the guy released today, being killed for his opinion.
You have a right to an opinion (no matter how odious), but if you act upon it or encourage others to act upon it then you deserve to be in the shit.
I chose Paris becasue even she has a clue about something
Terrorism Act 2000
I await the first prosecution of a UK mercenary.
Guy Fawkes be classed as a terrorist? If not why not?
He only intended to commit acts of terrorism against non-innocent people?
Doesn't original sin apply in Islam as well?
"My prosecution was a test case under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Today's decision means no first year student can ever be prosecuted again under this Act for possessing extremist literature."
This decision doesn't mean any such thing. At the very most, this decision means that hopefully, if a future judge feels like following precedent, he will not allow a conviction based on this premise. It does not mean the government will not try to prosecute someone under this premise.
And for the love of $deity, people, can we PLEASE get the phrase right? It's "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty". When you say "until", you're playing into the governments' hands -- that we're all guilty and they just haven't found the proof yet, but if they try real hard and are given enough time, they just know they'll find it (so we need to keep all suspects in jail until we find it). Christians might prefer that thought though, because it goes right along with original sin.
Well I hope that all those coming so resoutely to their defence rememebr that the next time their on a bus, and one of these morons, decides to take you to allah with him.
Yeah they just happened to be visiting those websites on the offchance ...surrreee.
They got a good lawyer, and so have got off, but you can be damns ure, taht they will be watched from now on for the rest of their natural. If I was them I'd be checking my brakes in the morning.
Yeah it was time for the Nazi examples to turn up
Firstly I totally disagree with all this outlawed information and not being allowed to hold an opinion, but the weasel words say a lot about the individual in question.
Having had to put up with terrorists most of my life I have a fairly deep rooted hatred of anybody who kills anybody who isn't a member of their group.
Yeah bring in the Nazis into the conversation and while you are at it add the phrase "think about the children" it always justifys your inaction.
I don't really remember the French (Danish, Polish and many other countrys) resistance groups blowing up pet markets, shooting doctors, strapping bombs to disabled people, killing and kidnapping Red Cross workers (and thats from the last couple of weeks alone).
I seem to remember that they actually attacked German troops, communications & transport infrastructure, and industrial targets.
However they did not go after the workers and civillian population.
For clarification, attacking the transport infrastructure means roads, bridges, railway lines, and not putting a bomb on a crowded bus.
If he wants to go and fight abroad, let him, with any luck he will have an accident while training and be no danger to anybody ever again.
No doubt if he survived such an accident, he will head back to the UK and want the health service to put him back together again, and then sue the home office for not protecting him from going in the 1st place
Freedom fighter / Terrorist
What some of you seem to be conveniently neglecting is that there is a big difference between specifically targetting members of an occuping army, and setting out to indescrimately kill as many people as you can to create fear / prove a point.
This is not a bumper sticker issue where something is either right or wrong. A recently interviewed CIA operative commenting on waterboarding considered it "necessary" despite the fact he found it "deeply troubling". This guy was at the cutting edge of the debate on "torture", and surprise surprise, acknowledges that it is not a simple black and white issue. Why does everyone buy into W's with us or against us mentality?
I find it troubling that 20 year old males are happy to live within a country whose societal beliefs they find personally unacceptable.
Freedom fighters vs Terrorists
Ok, people, it's not that difficult. A freedom fighter fights against military and/or government targets. A terrorist targets civilians to cause, well, terror in the general populace.
Snipers shooting soldiers or even political leaders is one thing, snipers shooting infants in carriages in front of synagogues is something else. Bombing military establishments or government facilities is one thing, bombing pizza parlours full of teenagers is something else. Mobbing and knifing a couple of uniformed soldiers is one thing (although taunting one of the soldier's wives when she rang his cellphone is pushing it), mobbing and stoning a couple of 14-year-old boys is something else.
Did the American "freedom fighters" of the Revolution hide in the trees and shoot at the British soldiers, or did they hide in the trees and shoot at the British soldiers' wives and kids? When the Israeli Irgun "freedom fighters" blew up the King David hotel, was it full of civilians on holiday, or was it being used as the British military headquarters? There is a difference.
"Firstly I totally disagree with all this outlawed information and not being allowed to hold an opinion, but the weasel words say a lot about the individual in question...."
Why don't you try reading the book "NATOs Secret Armies" by Daniel Ganzer. Then come make a statement.
Actually, all the anti-terrorism laws are being brought in by those nice woolly socialists of Noodle Labour, a.k.a. the nutty lefties that grew up in the 70's and 80's, supporting their fave marxist/lenninist/anti-establishmentarialist protest group (I'm sure they used to sound just as idiotic as you do). Nothing to do with right-wing anything.
So, given Malik's nice little condition of "innocent people", whom exactly do you think these kids thought they were going to go "fight"? Do you think they would draw the line at blowing up Shias in an Iraqi market? By many a Sunni's view Shias are one step of apostates and therefore not "innocent people" at all. Or maybe you think they were going to kill other Sunnis of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan because they don't want to apply the same strict Islamic code as the Taliban, which surely must make them not "innocent people"? Or is it OK with you as long as they stick to killing white Christian soldiers from countries trying to help the properly elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan (lets ignore the brown, yellow and black soldiers amongst the US and UK forces)?
I suggest you put your Che berret back in the cupboard and get on down to your local library to do a little reading before you waste any more bandwidth. In the meantime, I hope the leftist Noodle Labourites instruct our security services to keep an eye on these saddos.
/Paris to match your intellectual capabilities.
Roland Freisler will see you now.
> Er ... but what about if you deem them guilty? Is terrorism ok then?
> The statement would have been more powerful (and unequivocal) had the last three words been omitted.
That guy is not a politician trying to suck up to the dumbass populace.
Terrorism IS OK if deemed so BY PERSONAL JUDGEMENT. That's the whole effing point.
If you go to court and say TERRORISM IS OK but you did not bomb nor incite nor threaten or assault they are supposed to let you go. END OF STORY.
Simple definition of terrorists just don't hack it
*Ok, people, it's not that difficult. A freedom fighter fights against military and/or government targets. A terrorist targets civilians to cause, well, terror in the general populace.*
Unfortunately this is not the case in most of the world, and it is only the case from a subjective viewpoint - if one can just hold one's breath long enough to avoid admitting your own duplicity.
The US (possibly, who knows?) appeared to believe that in going into Iraq and Afghanistan they were aiding the case of freedom. By the definition above EVEN IF THEY WERE RIGHT they are terrorists. They have been known to attack civilian targets (mistakenly or otherwise) and the innocent have been deemed 'collateral damage'. This causes terror in the general populace and might even be an aim of said attacks - 'Don't support them or this will happen more.' The Israelis do the same thing.
So by this neat definition we have a problem:
US - terrorists
Iraq - terrorists
Israel - terrorists
Palestine - terrorists
Old SA govt - terrorists
ANC - terrorists
IRA - terrorists
British Army (oh yes they did) - terrorists
We could go on and on and on but I'm sure the picture is clear here. There is wrong and wronger, and less wrong. The end does in fact justify the means. We are all terribly sorry for the collateral damage and pray that that collateral damage is not our own child. But it's not any less just because you support the whichever side is a terrorist today and can't admit it to yourself.
I don't mind..
..him going to fight abroad.
I don't mind him never coming back because he's been fucking blown away, either.
Freedom fighters vs Terrorists
@Susan Ottwell. Are Governments exempted from that? Firebombing cities, atom bombs both sound like acts of terrorism. Unfortunately as conflicts have evolved civilians have got dragged in. From soldiers with swords in fields hacking each other to bits while everyone else got on with the business of the day to now where civilians are targeted. It's the flip side of hearts and minds. The view of Freedom Fighter versus Terrorist is one of personal perspective and not likely to be changed by any argument. If two opposing side committed the same acts of violence. Both sides would claim "we did it for the cause they did it cause their terrorists".
@Mectron: "with Islam it is shoot first , ask question later"
Nah, Your thinking of Brazilians, or is it people with black mp3 players, no I got it it's people carrying table legs.
Re: Freedom fighters vs Terrorists
"Did the American "freedom fighters" of the Revolution hide in the trees and shoot at the British soldiers, or did they hide in the trees and shoot at the British soldiers' wives and kids?"
They did worse.
They poured our tea into the sea.
@Susan - What about
>Ok, people, it's not that difficult. A freedom fighter fights against military and/or government targets. A terrorist targets civilians to cause, well, terror in the general populace.
And when the entire populace of the country is militarized? As in everyone MUST perform some (1yr 10 yrs whatever) military duty? are they "innocents" (ie invalid targets) after having finished their tour of duty? what about those in the National Guard, those on "call" but not on active duty - are they "innocents" (ie invalid targets)? or are they valid targets ONLY while serving (2 weekends a month or called to active duty)?
What about the Pentagon? was it a "Terrorist target" or was it a legitimate military target (on 9/11/2001)? what about the civilian workers inside? legitimate or not?
Regardless of your current country of residence - if your gov't starts running death squads (ala Central America circa 1980) - who is the terrorist?
What about the US revolution? Im sure the UK considered the 'US Patriots/founding fathers' terrorists. Where they?
CONTEXT and TIME - these are what defines the term Terrorist.
Flames - because its where the entire world is heading
Susan me thinks you have misinterpreted the saying, but while on discussion Muslims see as terrorism US and UK warplanes dropping bombs indiscriminately on men, women and children in the Middle East and beyond.
More than 1 million children died from Western sanctions prior to Iraq War, In WW2 the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan even though it had been established they would surrender. Then in Germany Allied planes firebombed places like Dresden and Berlin slaughtering millions.
Now I don't know what you think but that constitutes terrorism. And one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter!
Analogous Comparitve Histories are frought with over-simplification when used by mendicants....
Well well well... I can't say I was surprised by the multitude of polarized commentaries about this event. I'm generally happy with the distinction a few of you have pointed out between "Freedom Fighters" and "Terrorists". Though of course in the case of Palastine/Isreal civilians are in many ways eligable targets due to the agressive colonization projects of the Israeli government, and indeed the civilian population are accomplices to this. The active encroachment of in Palestinian lands is little short of ethnic cleansing. So perhaps in this instance one can see why civilains are targeted. Being in a relatively peaceful nation I find it hard to emphasize with any violent act however I understand in some parts of the world it is matter of survival.
In this particular case I believe that any attempt to attack or harm civilians in the UK is clearly and ethically wrong the said civilians are not complicit in the affairs and plans of their pseudo-democratic government and therefore targeting them would be largely fruitless as firstly the government in the UK probably wouldn't change their foreign policy on the basis of civilian attacks (this never worked for the IRA and made them largely unpopular with the British People, though some Americans found the idea of bombing pubs and the such romantic), if the British Governments policy toward injured war veterans is anything to go by civilian victims would be largely left to fend for themselves. Secondly the Government would probably use such attacks to further future military endeavours in the name of 'Freedom'.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned the simple fact to these Fanatical Islamists that America, China et al have the weapons and the technology so no amount of violent conflict is going to further you ridiculous cause in fact in the long run all it will do is leave the Middle East largely in ruins and the majority of European Muslims in political prisons or shipped back to the aforesaid Middle East. The point for budding 'Freedom Fighters' out there is that the Evil Empire can only function if it's people believe their war is just and by attacking civilians, or denizens of the Evil Empire your only going to perpetuate a war which you will eventually lose.
Far better to unite under a peaceful banner and protest against aforesaid occupations such as the one in Iraq (By the way the voting system there leaves a lot to be desired as it seems you need to be US vouched before you gain office...). At least if you did peaceful protests, hunger strikes, marches and the such you couldn't be branded as acceptable targets for US Hyper Cannons. Then at least if the US did commit any atrocities you would have a leg to stand on with the western public. Of course the problem here yet again is this idiotic religious row over whose lineage from Muhammed is legitimate. Maybe if you put aside these differences you could do something about the situation as it is your lucky you have the US military at least attempting to keep order. Maybe you should start thinking more like Saladin and less like Babyers? Yet again religion (Humanities single greatest mistake closely followed nationalism) has made an easy amicable (friendly in Latin) resolution impossible see Israel/Palestine for another fine example of Religious insanity.
As far as this case is concerned until the 'Suspects' actually commit a crime they ARE innocent. better to lose a 1000 people in one terrorist attack than to live in a Fascist state where hundreds vanish everyday for holding opinions which don't fit into a given Governments established rules on what you can think <nods to Pinochet>. If we the people abandon the ideals of freedom and liberty as our Governments seem to be willing to do, all we will have achieved is to legitimize the terrorists belief that the west is indeed the hateful and decadent totalitarian empire that these crack brained morons have thought up in their own heads.
I was generally happy to see that the French Resistance' argument was quickly refuted comparing modern Islamic or Anti-Western Extremism with the French Resistance is clearly as ridiculous as General Curtis Le-Mays statement during the Cuban Missile Crisis that "This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.... I just don't see any other solution except direct military intervention right now." If Kennedy had taken his advice World War Three would of likely ensued and all because of an erroneous historical analogy; had the Nazi's had Nuclear weapons in 1938 his comparison may have had some value. Let this be a lesson to all those who use comparative histories to prove a correlation rather than to prove differences. This goes for the Israeli comparison as well, This is a unique situation where the heady intoxicants of land usage, nationalism and religious fanaticisms as well as political machinations and interference have combined to produce one of the most ridiculous, ongoing and savage conflicts in world history.
What moron would on being given the choices of a) remaining in the US, b) returning to Europe or c) going to an infertile desert ridden, crag scarred already populated piece of land based on an erroneous religious creation myth (its religious therefore it must be erroneous) would chose C !? you have to be insane (one of the faithful) to sign up for that crackpot idea. Lets face it the Israel/Palestine conflict will never end as long as religion exists in the minds of people.
If Truman and those moronic 'Zionist' lobbyists in the late 40's hadn't of bribed the South American UN countries to vote for the legitimization of the Israeli state Palestine would never of been the problem it is today the Jews would either of had to live under Palestinian, come to a fair agreement (joint rule) rule or go back to Europe. You simply cannot adjudicate a territory dispute based on a thousands year old spiritual claim to land especially when their is already a legitimate state existent on that land. In addition Israeli terrorist groups not affiliated to the official Israeli Hagana in the 40's were attacking civilian populations just in case earlier posts failed to mention that little nugget. Marshall said to Truman if you followed the Zionist way of thinking there wouldn't be peace in Palestine till either all of one side or the other were dead, it seems he is increasingly right.
So in closing I would say that one should avoid making baseless comparisons on historical events as it usually ends in failure, In this case it would be better if you kept to the present or acknowledged the fundamental differences between the present and the past. When it comes to the War on Terror the only people who get screwed are those who are outside of the Plutocracies of the West, the Autocracies of South East Asia and the Terrorist Criminals and Fundamentalist states of the Middle East i.e. the majority of the people in those countries and on this planet...
The Black Helicopter because the Ministry of Love and Ingsoc are fighting East Asia and have always been fighting East Asia... and i don't really want to get involved thanks :)
</Tweed Jacket + Glasses, copy of Trenchards & Gordons 'Cato's Letters'\>
Are these the same lads you carried a number of articles on a few months back? I can't remember the titles of the articles but there doesn't seem to be a link in the list after the article.
The so called expert witness for the prosecution hid a lot of stuff and failed to elaborate on items that might show the defendants in a better light.
@ the terror apologists
Quote: "Are Governments exempted from that? Firebombing cities, atom bombs both sound like acts of terrorism."
Exactly when in the last 60 years has a city been carpet bombed, fire bombed, or nuked?
Quote: "They have been known to attack civilian targets (mistakenly or otherwise) and the innocent have been deemed 'collateral damage'. This causes terror in the general populace and might even be an aim of said attacks - 'Don't support them or this will happen more.'"
Mistakenly or *otherwise* ? GET A FUCKING GRIP. Do you seriously think that any government wants to be responsible for images of dead babies appearing all over the 24 hour satellite news channels?
The fact is that there ARE fanatics in this world who would be quite prepared to kill you, your entire family, and everyone you've ever fucking met if they though it would forward their own agenda. Name ONE government that you could *honestly* say would be prepared to do the same.
AC vs. Susan
What absolute rubbish!
The Japanese were absolutely NOT going to surrender! The military wanted to fight to the last man/woman/child, the Emperor only only overruled them after the 2nd bomb was dropped. Plenty of evidence there... Did you make that up or happen to find some revisionist history book? The deaths due to sanctions are "Saddam's word" totally unverifiable but, lest we forget, had he abided by UN rules, there wouldn't have been sanctions.
About the ONLY place you're in the general vicinity of being right in Dresden, even if you're off by 2 orders of magnitude on casualties. WWII was an ugly horrible affair, Dresden was unnecessary. But if you count bombing an enemy capital as unnecessary during WWII, then there's really nothing I can possible say to that...
Maybe you should join me at the library? Incase you haven't noticed the Labour Party hierarchy has been hijacked by centre right elitists who push corporatist/big business fascist neo-liberal policies. They are not representative of Labour's grass roots and hence the reason that grass root activists are pushing for Unions to separate from the party. The funds would then be used to finance a party which is representative. Unlike the plutocratic regime currently in charge who have continued to implement Thatcherite policies, allowing the wealthy to exploit and prosper, while most struggle to purchase an extra loaf in their weekly shopping budget. And this is set to get much worse.
Paris - For attempting to belittle and demonstrating that you truely have lesser intelligence than this obscenely rich biatch!
@terror apologists AC
haha you should maybe be the one to get a grip, put down the government school curriculum and read and think for yourself. You are a well indoctrinated child. Just think - what if our government don't have our best interests at heart? Wooo mind melt! I bet they didn't teach you that at school?
All the governments in the world are exactly the same as so called terrorists they use terror and fear to control the ignorant scared little sheep and their indiscriminate acts towards other races and states has bred further terror. Until they change their ways it will continue to be this way and being as intelligent as they are you would think they could learn from their mistakes.
strapping bombs to disabled people
Incidentally, It hasn't been proven that that those two girls were mentally impaired. The only indication of such were photos of the bombers' heads, shown to journalists by a member of the US Army.
"He said the broad foreheads, flattened noses and almond-shaped eyes were all suggestive of Down syndrome"
Bob Lambourne, director of forensic services for the British Embassy in Baghdad has cautioned that;
"...suggesting the two bombers suffered from Down syndrome based on photographs of their severed heads was "dangerous."
"...the violent explosion that rips a head from its neck would also affect muscles, bones and arteries and could distort the face. The explosion likely would exert pressure on the face similar to G-forces experienced by pilots"
""It would be dangerous to make that conclusion based on photos," he said of Down syndrome speculation."
Of course it is a possibility that the bombers were mentally impaired, but I find it somewhat disconcerting when the unproven claims of one military source are disseminated all over news outlets as fact, often with no further qualification.
Support to John
For pointing out how retarded the arguments against Susan were.
Terrorist- someone who INTentionally goes out to KILL as many civilians as possible
Government (British/US/Israeli)- People who spend countless time/money/effort trying NOT TO KILL civilians. Yes Collateral damage happens, but the Agenda of Government is to try to minimise casualties as much as humanly possible- n.b. this is a bit harder if you (like Saddam) keep your Missiles underneath Schools/Hospitals etc.
The science icon to try and explain the difference.
@@the terror apologists
"Name ONE government that you could *honestly* say would be prepared to do the same."
Some Scandinavian ones might possibly have second thoughts about it. As for the rest...without even blinking - they do it all the time.
I went to Bradford Uni and came across a lot of beardies in my time there.All I saw was a bunch losers who had it good ( free education and social benefits ) and were supporting a cause they did not know anything about. Brainwashed morons who took offence when you greeted them on Eid , because you were a non muslim.
I would blame the ghetto mentality these kids have and a lack of desire to assimilate.Nobody is asking you to take everything friom Anglo Saxon culture, take whats good and be a better citizen. Instead ,they end up with the same tribal mentality their cousins back in the badlands of northern Pakistan have.Those kids arent as innocent as they claim to be.
BTW, I am not a white or a BNP supporter.
Can someone provide the url to download the jihadist materials?
I'm in a small town in Iowa and it's hard as hell to score some
good jihad smackdown.
I can hook you up with some good sites like one that says this
"Multi-discipline qualifications should include organizational level
conventional and unconventional war fighting tactics, operations, and
training. Demonstrated skills should include the proficient ability to
use Microsoft Office products."
really! no kidding.
"Exactly when in the last 60 years has a city been carpet bombed, fire bombed, or nuked?"
If you want an example of Thee Military-Industrial Complex indiscriminately bombing the crap out of a civilian population, try Laos in the early seventies. Between 1971 and 1973 the USAF planted more ordnance on Laos than was dropped worldwide during World War II. You might also like to note the long-term effects of the use of Agent Orange against Vietnamese civilians: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/29/usa.adrianlevy. I hope you're not maintaining that cluster bombs and chemical weapons are OK if used only against /rural/ types?
In the halcyon days before 11/9, historian John Keegan wrote "air power and international morality now march in step", but somehow I think he missed the irony.
Yes, the definition of terrorism, and thus the classification of people as terrorists, is fraught with controversy. I don't intend to add my pifling thoughts to that part of the debate raging here.
What I do want to say is: If your definition of terrorism includes reading web-sites, your definition is wrong, and you're a fascist.
"Suspect" all you want about the motives of these youngsters. Maybe they did intend to commit acts of terrorism. But "maybe" is not supposed to be enough to spend time behind bars. "Thinking about doing it" is also not enough. You need, at the very least, proof of an unequivocal plan to commit a crime, before you can try someone.
Because modern, civilised countries are not suposed to prosecute for thought-crime. What goes on in your head is your god-damned business!
Did any of these people send women into a crowded area and blow them up?
John and Alex D
Emperor Hirohito was very close to surrendering. He was completely up for it it was the cabinet who wanted to wait out to get some concessions rather than unconditional surrender.
He was ready to overrule them.
But the Russians were nearly at the border and had promised to help the US in the East. Since the Ruskies had beaten them to Berlin (an attempt to be first to Berlin by a US column resulted in them being bombed by UK artillery because the column weren't supposed to be there yet), the americans didn't want to have to share Japan with them as well.
So they figured they couldn't wait and bombed Hiroshima.
Do you support terrorism.
Do you for instance support indiscriminatly blowing up random members of the civilian population to pieces.
Do you support depriving sick children of drugs that would keep them alive because thier families may support someone you disagree with.
Do you support the abduction and torture of people because you suspect they disagree with you.
If you voted for Tony Blair or George Bush then you do.
Journos are not gods
"Do you seriously think that any government wants to be responsible for images of dead babies appearing all over the 24 hour satellite news channels?"
Implies that journalists are omniscient. I don't think governments care about certain things if people don't find out about them. I understand why not. As with the 'war against terror', 'freedom fighting', etc. you'll easily accept a certain amount of intentional civilian damage and do your damnedest to not draw attention to it.
There are plenty of governments who would happily kill entire families every day. They do it. Many of them are viewed as autocracies by Western societies but doesn't change the fact that they're governments.
Do I believe that the UK government is on a par with groups behind suicide bombings? No. But the point is that Stuart reinforces: you can't be convicted for your thoughts, reading matter, etc. in most Western societies. I might like the idea of putting these blokes behind bars preventatively but can't JUSTIFY it.
By leaving them out we risk losing our loved ones to a terrorist attack (but those particular blokes aren't much risk as they'll be well under surveillance). By putting them away, the next thing the black jackboots jumping out of that helo will be kicking down your door, shooting you full of sedatives, carting your kids off into the care of the government and you'll wake up under a big bright light being screamed at in New Guantanamo Bay.
I guess we can all decide for ourselves whether the risk of terrorism is large enough for us to forego some of our freedoms. There'd have to be more risk before I'd give up mine.