back to article Students win appeal against cyberjihad convictions

Five British muslim students jailed for downloading extremist material from the internet were released today, after the Appeal Court ruled their convictions were unsafe. The Lord Chief Justice said that although the evidence was clear that the five had accessed the jihadi websites and literature there was no proof of any …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    porn

    Whatever next.. they'll try and do people for owning consenting porn.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    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

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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 ?

  4. Dimitrov
    Unhappy

    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.

  5. Jay

    @AC, Worrying

    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.

  6. DavetheRave
    Stop

    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.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ AC#2

    "... 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?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    (Titled)

    @ 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

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Weasel words

    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.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Anonymous Coward

    "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.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Innocent People?

    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.

  12. Dennis
    Happy

    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?

  13. Ian Rowe
    Linux

    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.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Forgetful ?

    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

  15. Luther Blissett

    Terrorism Act 2000

    I await the first prosecution of a UK mercenary.

    Still waiting.

  16. brimful

    Can

    Guy Fawkes be classed as a terrorist? If not why not?

  17. Henry Cobb
    Flame

    Innocent victims?

    He only intended to commit acts of terrorism against non-innocent people?

    Doesn't original sin apply in Islam as well?

  18. Chris C

    So naive

    "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.

  19. LPF
    Thumb Down

    Hmmmmm

    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.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    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

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  22. jimvach

    Polarisation

    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.

  23. Susan Ottwell

    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.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    @Anonymous Coward

    "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.

  25. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    RE: DavetheRave

    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.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    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.

    Moronic crap!!

    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.

  27. Vic
    Thumb Down

    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.

  28. Sam

    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.

  29. Niall

    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.

  30. Les Matthew
    Joke

    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.

  31. Fred
    Flame

    @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

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Heart

    @Susan

    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!

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    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'\>

  34. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

    Stacked evidence?

    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.

    Therefore not?

    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.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ the terror apologists

    @ Niall

    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?

    @ Vic

    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.

  36. john
    Flame

    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...

  37. DavetheRave
    Paris Hilton

    @Matt Bryant

    Hey Matt

    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!

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    @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.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

    http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Feb/20080203News021.asp.

  40. Alex D
    Boffin

    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.

  41. Steen Hive
    Thumb Down

    @@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.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Hardly innocent

    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.

  43. Johnny Rotten

    url please?

    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.

    -i

  44. Mr Larrington
    Flame

    @Anonymous Coward

    "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.

  45. Stuart Van Onselen

    Terrorism debate

    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.

    Why?

    Because modern, civilised countries are not suposed to prosecute for thought-crime. What goes on in your head is your god-damned business!

  46. Mark
    Stop

    Re: @AC#2

    Did any of these people send women into a crowded area and blow them up?

    No.

  47. Mark
    Stop

    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.

  48. James Anderson
    Thumb Down

    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.

  49. Vic
    Dead Vulture

    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.

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    @strapping bombs to disabled people

    Could be quickly enough proved by counting the cromosones (pardon the spelling)

    How about the Palistinian special needs kid being used as a suicide bomber a few months ago or was he not disabled enough.

    The point stands that a pet market full of innocents (as I would perceive them) is hardly advances the cause of freedom (for causing terror & fear it was a reasionably well chosen target I suppose)

    Christ I hate the chattering classes.

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Enough!

    I think I'm going to have a day off from giving a shit about civil liberties and just wish they'd kept the stupid little wankers banged up forever, not least on the grounds that angst ridden hormonal teenage outbursts should be reserved for drinking too much and getting laid, not indiscriminate slaughter and tedious piety.

    Paris, cos she'd be with me on this one.

  52. graeme leggett Silver badge
    Coat

    Lao bombing - really?

    Seems hard to figure...

    Germany alone had about 1,600 thousand tons of bombs(1) from 39-45 dropped on it by the USAAF and RAF; and the latter needed over 300,000 sorties.

    Forget the coat - flying overalls for me.

    1)War In The Air 1939–1945; the US Strategic Bombing Survey gives 2,700,000 tons

  53. Shakje

    It's all very well using dictionary definitions of terrorism

    but the fact is that a hard and fast definition will not cover it. With a definition of not striking civilian targets, the Iranian embassy siege is not terrorism, but bombing a capital city in the middle of a war definitely is. If you stick by the definition then you need to stick to it with all examples.

    It is widely known that wealthy US citizens funded the IRA up until 9/11, and the US has (as admitted by various people) funded terrorism in South America (which has resulted in the deaths of civilian targets), and, of course, Afghanistan.

    I definitely don't condone terrorism of any sort, and while I have real sympathy for Palestine, Hamas aren't really doing them any favours. On the other hand, the Israelis have also targeted non-military targets on more than one occasion to make a point.

    As for the French Resistance, if there was a group in the UK blowing up bridges (let's also, for the sake of argument, say that they are Islamic extremists) do you honestly think the government would say, well they're just blowing up bridges, they're not terrorists? Or do you think they would bring the full weight of the terrorism act on them? And how do you think that the media would portray them?

    Words are purely subjective. Their definition comes after common usage determines what they mean. At the moment, terrorism is very much a fear word, that means anything someone else, who has strongly differing views to us, does to us is terrorism.

  54. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    Condone Terrorism

    I do ..

    Lets be sensible, under these wide definitions the founding fathers were terrorists, Oliver Cromwell, etc etc

    Terrorism is the proper response to an overbearing authority. You make it fucking personal.

  55. Chewy

    oh well

    I'm sure they'll enjoy their 72 raisins when they get to heaven for being a martyr

  56. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    None of the above

    These people are neither freedom fighters nor terrorists. They just read some stuff of the internet.

    It's going to take a lot more than this court win to overturn Blair's attack on our freedoms.

  57. Dimitrov
    Flame

    @I don't mind..

    Not all of us live in the UK or the US you know. So you say it's really bad for them to kill people in your country, but it's ok to fight abroad? Talk about double standards.

  58. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    what's in a name?

    anon: "...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..."

    and, as other before me have pointed out, what a lot of you armchair generals seem to be conveniently ignoring is the fact that the US and UK [& other countries] for decades adopted the policy of deliberately dropping bombs from aircraft onto civillian population centres for, killing hundreds of thousands of times more 'innocent' people than the most rabid jihadist could dream of.

    anon: "...Exactly when in the last 60 years has a city been carpet bombed, fire bombed, or nuked?..."

    but we've stopped now, so it doesn't count anymore, is that it?

    whilst i'd acknowledge that the UK/US may not actively use carpet-bombing anymore, i seem to remember during the invasion of iraq seeing footage released by the US of cruise missile attacks on various government buildings, bridges and television and radio stations. presumably the various canteen staff, cleaners, visitors and general passers-through in those various locations when the bombs hit were 'legitimate targets'

    Susan Ottwell: "...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..."

    sigh! - see above!

    Matt Bryant: "...So, given Malik's nice little condition of "innocent people", whom exactly do you think these kids thought they were going to go "fight"?..."

    the optimum word being 'thought'. they didn't actually go to fight anyone. all they did was download some crap off the internet and indulge in some spotty adolescent fantasising about it. hence the reason people are making references to 'thought crime'. if you're going to start convicting them [or anyone else] for every illegal act we've idly fantasised about since puberty struck, we might as well just build a cell wall round the entire country!

    /Paris to match your intellectual capabilities.

    ... and exceed yours, obviously!

    Stuart Van Onselen: " ...If your definition of terrorism includes reading web-sites, your definition is wrong, and you're a fascist..."

    spot on!

    the problem with 'terrorism' is that [like 'democracy' and 'freedom'] it is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. we've been used to hearing US governments over the years spouting this kind of meaningless drivel, but when the supposedly pragmatic british start adopting a similar non-vocabulary we might as well give up. for all the concrete defineable meaning phrases like 'terrorist', 'enemy of democracy' and 'enemy of freedom' have the government really might as well just define the world in terms of 'goodies' and 'baddies' and have done with it. it makes just as much sense and it's quicker to type!

    [as a parting thought, i've long been mildly curious as to why the [shall we say] 'guerilla' is so reviled, while the proud british 'squaddie' is revered as the epitome of nobility and heroism; the first will kill you for some political end he sincerely believes in - the second will kill you simply because the government of the day asks him to.]

    ----

    paris - coz i once fantasied about terrorising her with a cucumber and a gallon drum of swarfega and should therefore immediately be imprisoned under the sexual offences act.

  59. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    re: what's in a name

    "and, as other before me have pointed out, what a lot of you armchair generals seem to be conveniently ignoring is the fact that the US and UK [& other countries] for decades adopted the policy of deliberately dropping bombs from aircraft onto civillian population centres for, killing hundreds of thousands of times more 'innocent' people than the most rabid jihadist could dream of."

    I think you will find that Muslims have killed hundreds of thousands of times more Muslims than the US and UK combined.

  60. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    state terrorism

    many articles believe that in Italy there was state terrorism in the 1980's, what's the phrase again? Ah yes, False Flag Terrorism

    Allegedely also used to encourage people vote for Vlad.Putin in his first election, never mind GwB and TonyB-liar's & Rummy's whatever "Office of Strategic Influence" strategies. once you start looking into the historical & histerical use of securitists/terrorists/freedom-fighters, then things get murky & obfuscated. We need amanFromMars to clarify things!

    is TWaT about maintaining Plutocracy? - like the phrase aCaB from my youth I'm certain that the intelligence agencies drones *really* believe aMaTerrorists.

    have I earned an "eternal limbo of the control order" by reminding the blogosphere of Galdio?, people/cyberjihadees with 'bad' Google search ccock-ies could just be control ordred rather than court time wasted. remember not to believe anything that you read.

  61. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pirate

    RE: DavetheRave

    "....the Labour Party hierarchy has been hijacked by centre right elitists...." What can I say, reality's a female dog. Soon as your average Red Flag singer gets into power, he suddenly realises all that socialist/marxist/lenninist claptrap just won't work in the modern world, so they end up copying the center and the right. Please enlighten me as to which party exactly do you think is going to step up and "free the masses" and retain even a fraction of the voting population's support? You have very obviously forgotten that Labour had to move very hard away from the left to get elected at all (too much medication?).

    And for all the amatuer legal eagles out there, in the UK we do have laws around preparation and intent to commit crimes, which means someone can be charged, tried and convicted without having to actually commit the act itself (innocent until proven guilty does not mean freedom to cmmit the act before arrest). In fact, our definition of an assault includes the fear that could be caused by reasonably believing that someone is going to assault you or another, hence the allowance of reasonable self-defence ("he was coming at me waving a knife, I believed he had the intent of causing me serious injury or death, m'lord, so I hit him"), which extends to the defence of others ("he approached my wife with the knife and, as I believed he was about to attack her, I attacked him"). One discussion around the Menezes killing was that, since the policeman that shot him believed he was an armed suicide bomber (note I said "believed" as, regardless of the reality, the armed police team had been given info and instructions that made them really believe Menezes was a threat that justified the use of lethal force), his legal defence if it ever went to court could be that he was acting in defence of the other commuters, and the circumstances (information leading to the belief he was a suicide bomber possibly with a manual trigger) allowed the shoot-to-kill as the only reasonable action that ensured no risk of death or serious injury to the other commuters.

    It is a crime to make a statement inciting a criminal act ("kill all non-believers") or to threaten a violent act ("I'm going to beat all you nutters"), so I am assuming that despite their obvious jihadi intent, in this case the CSA could not provide proof that such a statement has been made (I can own an explosives manual, but the CSA has to prove I untended to make use of it in a criminal act either through preparation or statement). That does not mean to say that these morons won't move on to commit a criminal act either here or abroad "fighting" at a later date, especially given the lovely "innocent" qualification, so I would expect the police/MI5 to watch them until they are judged to no longer represent a possible threat to the public. In the meantime, please feel free to associate with them if you see fit (I assume they allow viitors at your hospital).

  62. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Re: @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."

    Crawl back into your tinfoil lined survival bunker, you headcase.

  63. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ graeme leggett

    Yes, Laos was bombed to high hell.

    During WWII, the average load of a bomber (Lancaster etc) was a fraction of that of the B52's used during the Vietnamese War of Independence, so it stands to reason that in far fewer sorties a much higher amount of ordnance could be dropped.

    One recent example of how bombing has 'advanced' (and I use that word in quotes, because only an inhuman monster would actually consider the ability to kill people more efficiently and brutally an actual advance rather than a step down the evolutionary ladder!) was the January 10th US attack on the southern outskirts of Baghdad. They dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives on 40 targets in the same area - in a single day!!! Now map that out across the whole country's conflict areas, multiply by the number of days that war has been going on and you might have an idea of the potential scale for a modern bombing campaign.

    Also, to respond to some others who suggest that terrorism is simply strapping suicide vests on and going blowing up a market, I'd say they need to read the news a little more - the US/UK governments are terrorising the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis with far bigger explosives and in an even more indiscriminate way. The use of DU alone may potentially cause the deaths of millions of people over the next few thousand years in that part of the world (and will most likely the troops who were given that ammunition to use - for which there is NO protection). Watch out for upturns in premature births, birth deformities, cancers, infertility and the like... it's already begun in the US amongst the team originally charged with the task of finding a way to clean up the mess of DU ammo.

    That these lads have been released is a blow for rational freedom. Innocent unless proven guilty. In fact, how can you be found guilty if you've done nothing other than commit 'thought crime'. But that's where the UK is headed - thought crime is becoming a real issue in our judicial/policing system.

  64. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    re: @ graeme leggett

    "Also, to respond to some others who suggest that terrorism is simply strapping suicide vests on and going blowing up a market, I'd say they need to read the news a little more - the US/UK governments are terrorising the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis with far bigger explosives and in an even more indiscriminate way."

    So, US/UK planes loiter around all day looking for pet markets to drop 1000lb bombs onto?

    I don't fucking think so.

    Laos was bombed in an attempt to stop the North Vietnamese bringing arms and personnel down the Ho Chi Min trail. The B52s were bombing jungle - NOT population centres.

  65. Rob Crawford
    Stop

    From: Sometimes I worry

    I dislike anything that compares the Nazi reigime with anything (cept Stalin era Russia or Pol Pot in Cambodia).

    As I said I disagree with all this forbidden information, as I reserve the right to read and think for myself, and no doubt will also be in serious trouble if this UK ID card shit ever goes live, cos I ain't going to carry one

    @ Shakje : I agree with much of what you say, however with the French resistance (for example) can at least claim to have some morals. If the IRA (for example) had carried out such a policy there would have been a lot more people alive, any sensible proposals thay made may have actually been listened to, and the Loyalist terrorists would have almost no platform to try and justify their atrocitys.

    @ AC that starts off with "I do.."

    Becasue something was in the past dosn't make it right, but as far as I am aware most of the human race is trying to move foreward, perhaps you should help it by being quiet.

    @ dimitrov : I think the point was that if this individual departed from this plane of existance while trying to be come a terrorist it woudn't be a great loss. Not that it was ok for him to kill others overseas

    @marda : Try intended targets, no the US/UK didn't actively target cleaners unlike the terrorists, that killing some cleaners is a great victory

    Guerilla can be taken both ways, with terrorist the hint is in the word terror, the intent is to cause terror in the general population. As for squaddirs I have met excellent ones and complete arses. And have seen several killed while clearing civillians during car bombings (unlike members of IRA, INLA, UDA, FARC BM, jihadists, Red Brigade, ANO, JRA, Shining Path, RUF, ETA, Tamil Tigers)

    Terrorists are not in the business of progress, they are in the terror business. If they wanted to change things setting themselves on fire in public places would be much more effective. But you don't get personal power doing things like that.

    I truely hope that you never live on the receiving end of terrorism, by that I mean sustained bombings, murders, torture and their assorted fundraising activitys (protection rackets, prostotution, drugs et al).

    I have lived through it and therefore have a somewhat intolerant view of such activitys

    Oh yes I suppose I should add an insult, but really I just hope that you never manage to polute the gene pool (or indeeed get the opportunity to attempt the process)

  66. SteveMD

    Not about justice.

    The ruling was not about the law being unjust, it was about the way the jury was directed by the original judge. It wasn't made clear that owning this material was not in itself a crime, but that there also needed to be a "reasonable suspicion" that the owner would use it to commit an offence.

    This isn't Law Lords "fighting the Government" and it does not mean others will not be convicted under this law, it just means the original judge cocked it up.

  67. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ AC posted 14:24 GMT

    Quote: "One recent example of how bombing has 'advanced' (and I use that word in quotes, because only an inhuman monster would actually consider the ability to kill people more efficiently and brutally an actual advance rather than a step down the evolutionary ladder!) was the January 10th US attack on the southern outskirts of Baghdad. They dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives on 40 targets in the same area - in a single day!!! "

    But that's only 1 or 2 bombs for each of the 40 targets.

    In WWII they would typically have dropped at least 500,000 pounds on just 1 target - and STILL wouldn't have got more than 5% of the bombs within 1000ft of the aiming point.

    Oh, and how many of those 40 Baghdad targets were schools, hospitals, or mosques etc?

  68. Mark

    @David Corbett

    "Oh, and how many of those 40 Baghdad targets were schools, hospitals, or mosques etc?"

    Depending on who you ask, lots or very few.

    But since one pile of rubble looks much like another, who can tell, eh?

  69. theotherone
    Flame

    mein shite

    so if i download a copy of mein kampf, does that make me a neo Nazi fascist white racist KKK terrorist???

  70. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Innocent?

    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."

    Depends on the definition of innocent. For example, for the average Islamic terrorist, it could go like this ( but this can be applied to any extremist group, not just religious ones, I use Islamists as a topical example, or Government, cause, political faction, etc ).

    Non-Muslims are guilty of not being Muslim. So only Muslims are innocent, and non-muslims are legitimate targets.

    However, Muslims who live in the west are guilty of living in the west. So non-western muslims are innocent, and the Western Muslims are legitimate targets.

    Now, the banner of Islam flies over at least 2 well known divisions. So for sake of argument, any muslim who is not, say, Sunni, is guilty of not being a Sunni, so are legitimate targets.

    Now any Sunni who doesn't think and believe our version of Sunni Islam, is guilty of not beliving like we do, and so are legitimate targets.

    Any Sunni who doesn't belong to my group, is guilty of not belonging to my group, so is a legitamate target.

    And anyone in my group who doesn't believe that the rest of the human race is a legitamate target and we should be bombing and killing and maiming it because it shows how wonderful and honorable and worthy our chosen Diety / Cause / Belief is, well, being off my Christmas card list is the least of their problems.

  71. heystoopid

    An interesting conundrum

    An interesting conundrum , how do you prevent a crime prior to execution ?

    1/ Eliminate all peoples common law rights and allow the all police forces free and unfettered rights to bully without penalty , issue secret shoot to kill laws , when accidents and the innocent are murdered by the armed police in public view white wash that crime sweep it under the carpet and promote the idiots responsible !

    To the public create the illusion of safety but at the same time you allow a new and more evil group of people in uniform to terrorize the entire population in the name of officialdom (Germans in 1933 called them Gestapo, or Tony Blair's out of control UK Armed Police Force post 9/11 take your pick there is no real difference between them now )

    2/ Create a honey trap and draw in the flies !

    The problem with that one is nine hundred and ninety times out of a thousand the victims will be innocent and the curious seeking the other persons point of view !

    (back to the drawing board)

    3/ Select a group of people call them radical wankers as the their leader is either an outspoken open critic of all your evil policies of torture , no rights , prisoner abuse to obtain questionable confessions under duress , guilt before innocence and so on or a desire to create something you do not like and freedom with another style of heavy hand at the helm within the country !

    Having done that you send in your plant with the right equipment to stir the pot , now that is a crime in itself ! Oh well back to the drawing board !

    I seem to recall that during the troubled times in Ireland the English had applied the variations of the above themes for well over one hundred years with very limited success , but try as they might they could never extinguish the idea that one day the people would obtain real self determination no matter how brutal or ruthless the use of force was applied to suppress and abuse the local population short of total genocide which looks really bad on the Prime Ministers resume !

    An interesting conundrum indeed , and yet it is also an interesting message the Law Lords are sending to the Judges at the same time to be very aware the so called guardians employed to enforce the laws of the land are equally guilty of the same crimes but remained unpunished by rendering the verdict unsafe !

    What price freedom when we are being governed by only idiots and morons with hidden big business agenda's ?

    Paris , because even she has more brain cells then the entire current house of commons from the Prime Minister down to the last back bencher put together !

  72. DavetheRave

    @heystoopid - Here Here

    Well said!

  73. Ian Rowe
    Stop

    Point of definition

    Firstly, to anyone saying word definitions don't matter.. if we take a long trek back for a second to the story we're actually commenting on, its about what many call thought crime. I should hope that if anyone were actually horrible or stupid enough to condone the existence of thought crime then they'd at least have the decency to get their definitions straight so those among us who know how to use a dictionary have some chance of not being arrested for saying the wrong thing.

    It is a a slippery slope to let a words meaning be determined by peoples feelings towards current events. The first example that comes to mind is communism.. surely considered a dirty word in the US yet its origins are innocent enough. Imagine arresting people for going to websites promoting communism.. what would be next? a crackdown on anarchists? granted communism and anarchy don't promote murder but if its that we're worried about why not arrest people for watching TV.

    As some have pointed out and others seem to have missed.. terrorism is all about causing terror. The most common use of the word is all about whether the target of killing is the victim or the impact their death will have on a population. As questionable as the actions of countries such as the US are, not all of their atrocities come close to being a candidate for terrorism.

    The key ingredient they are missing is intent, it is certain that wars cause terror in civilian life especially when using civilian unfriendly methods such as less than surgical use of powerful bombs. There is a big difference between killing civilians because you're careless or callus and targeting them to cause terror however.

    It could be argued that the US when bombing the Japanese in WWII were using terrorism as it has the key ingredient of intent. There is no doubt as to the US' intent to create fear and force the Japanese to surrender rather than any military impact the bombings had.

    To contrast this with an example from James Anderson who commented on the use of torture by the US, the intent of any torture would be to gain information or because the people involved are sadistic morons who want to punish prisoners. If anything the US are doing their best to keep any torture secret, secrets aren't very fear inducing.

    Another point brought up was political sanctions being terrorism.. I would argue that although sanctions effect civilians more than anyone their intent is not to cause fear or terror.

    As much as I can say I don't condone terrorism I have no influence over so called terrorists. I am supposed to however have influence in our democracy (ha ha) and as such feel more strongly about the actions of our government than those of complete strangers from another culture. Personally I would rather risk being the victim of a terrorist attack than have anyone be the victim of our government.

  74. Eric Olson

    To whoever actually brought up the US Revolutionary War

    Well, I don't know what it's called in the UK, but it's the Revolutionary War. After throwing the tea in the drink, and the red coats coming over to teach us a lesson, there was a concerted effort by the separatists to attack, damage, steal, and kill those who were seen as "royalists" and loyal to the Crown. In other words, terrorize them. Done by those very heroes and the men that we venerate today.

    Then you have our Civil War, and the stuff the North and South did to each other was absurd. Beyond the plans for assassination and destruction of supply lines and morale, both sides, but especially the South, took to dropping "coal" bombs into the bins used by steamers up and down the Mississippi. Some were military vessels, patrolling for contraband and South sympathizers, but since those "bombs" were placed in any old coal dump on a port, a steamer carrying passengers could take it on instead. In fact, there are atrocities involving steamers that killed thousands of civilians, numbers that would make 9/11 seem like child's play. There was also research by both sides in biological warfare and chemical warfare, as well as missiles that could reach population centers. The intent was not to strike a specific location, but just anywhere, to scare and terrorize the people living there. Sounds similar.

    Today's "terrorists" are only different in that they don't usually have a nationalistic goal, but instead an ideological one. And that is what scares people, more than any weapon could. It's a battle of thought, and the West's reaction seems to be to ban thought. Though, to be fair, the evangelicals of America and the anti-science crazies were hard at work on that before the Bushies came in to power and the "Islamic" terrorists started on their grand scheme.

    So, there we have it. What's that phrase, "History is written by the winners?" If the Brits had supressed the rebellion in the US Colonies, they would have looked to George Washington as a terrorist leader, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been seen as rabble-rousers and threats to a cohesive society, and put to death. It's not a matter of relativism, but the simple fact that we don't like it when our tactics are used against us. That doesn't make it any better when you are on the side being attacked, and yes we should put a stop to it, but the current plan is certainly not working.

  75. Maty

    A terrorist is ...

    ... someone with different political/religious opinions to yourself who is prepared to kill innocent people to force his opinions on the remainder.

    A freedom fighter is someone who shares your political/religious beliefs and is fighting an oppressive enemy no matter how much 'collateral' damage is involved.

    And someone reading about it on the internet is neither.

  76. Stuart Van Onselen

    @AC @ 14:24 GMT

    For the umpteenth time: Depleted Uranium is DEPLETED!!!!!

    That is, it has a trifling amount of radioactivity. The radioactive isotopes have been 99% removed, to be in nuclear weapons or power stations. If there were enough radioactive atoms left in a pile of DU to be dangerous, there would also be enough to be worth the effort extracting it. Just like you won't find significant quantities of gold in a lead bullet, even if the lead were mined from a gold-bearing ore.

    However, uranium is flammable, and it is a heavy metal (just like lead or gold) so yes, it is toxic in large doses. But there will be no cases of cancer or deformities associated it.

    Damnit! I really hate the ignorance that believes that anything to do with radiation is bad, and that a gruesome death awaits anyone who comes within 100 miles of it.

  77. Mr Larrington
    Paris Hilton

    @AC

    "The B52s were bombing jungle - NOT population centres."

    Not even Paris could miss the point that badly. How, then, did they manage to kill up to 100,000 people in Laos and a further 150,000 in Cambodia - http://www.genocidetext.net/us_violence.pdf?

    Unless "collateral damage" doesn't count.

This topic is closed for new posts.