Aressting because of hate speach

This left a bad taste in my mouth. Even thou the aresstees were saying the UK, denmark, US and compeny should have be bombed four years is to heavy a price for not even plaining a crime.

Four men jailed over cartoon demo
Umran Javed, jailed over Muhammad cartoon protests
Umran Javed was one of the men jailed over the protests
Four men have been jailed for their part in protests outside the Danish embassy in London, against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were each jailed for six years for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

A fourth man, Abdul Saleem, 32, was jailed for four years for stirring up racial hatred at the protest in 2006.

The men, from London and Birmingham, were convicted at the Old Bailey.

Judge Brian Barker said their words had been designed to encourage murder and terrorism.

About 300 protestors marched outside the Danish embassy in February last year after cartoons satirising Muhammad were published in newspapers in Denmark and other European countries.

Outside the sentencing hearing, a group of around 40 demonstrators waved placards with slogans including "Muslims Under Siege".

'Blood running'

Rahman, from Palmers Green, north London, was filmed at the rally talking over a loudspeaker and calling for UK soldiers to be brought back from Iraq in body bags.

He said: "We want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad.

Mizanur Rahman
Mizanur Rahman called for the deaths of UK soldiers in Iraq

"We want to see the Mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds. We want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags."

Javed, from Birmingham, was filmed by police shouting: "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA."

Father-of-five and BT engineer Saleem was cleared of soliciting murder at his trial in February, but convicted of stirring up racial hatred.

Saleem, from Poplar, east London, chanted, "7/7 on its way" and "Europe, you will pay with your blood".

Finally, Abdul Muhid, 24, said to be the leader of the demonstration, chanted "Bomb, bomb the UK" and waved placards with slogans such as "Annihilate those who insult Islam".

The men had denied having extremist views and said they were simply following others rather than leading the protests.

After the case, Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "We have a long history of facilitating lawful demonstration, taking into account freedom of speech.

"However, these people stepped over that line and broke the law."

I can't say I feel bothered by this in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were each jailed for six years for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

A fourth man, Abdul Saleem, 32, was jailed for four years for stirring up racial hatred at the protest in 2006.

---

seems fair to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

---

That, my friend, is where the limit of free speech lies and it's the reason why words can kill, even if indirectly. It's forbidden here as well, hate speech and nazi propaganda are not allowed. Otherwise I'd say you could allow even the planning of an attack since a plan doesn't hurt anyone, right?

What woorys me more here is the precedent. Under this precedent a few careless words could mean six years of your life gone. Under this prcedent someone could be aressted for saying that [insert facist regiem here] needs to bombed. Overall I have problemes with someone being given six years for a speach, not a bomb not even plans for building a bomb, but for the want to build a bomb. If this is the precendent then a lot more arrest should be made then just these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Under this precedent a few careless words could mean six years of your life gone.

---

Quote:

---

Rahman, from Palmers Green, north London, was filmed at the rally talking over a loudspeaker and calling for UK soldiers to be brought back from Iraq in body bags.

He said: "We want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad.

"We want to see the Mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds. We want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags."

Javed, from Birmingham, was filmed by police shouting: "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA."

Saleem, from Poplar, east London, chanted, "7/7 on its way" and "Europe, you will pay with your blood".

Finally, Abdul Muhid, 24, said to be the leader of the demonstration, chanted "Bomb, bomb the UK" and waved placards with slogans such as "Annihilate those who insult Islam".

---

a few careless words indeed...

--> I agree that care has to be taken when acting on such things, however freedom of speech is not limitless... when someone advocates murder or violence then they are commiting an offence, furthermore although they have not planned anything, their words and actions could lead to others planning attacks etc...

:2thumbsup:

They should have been charged with treason and the key thrown away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

They should have been charged with treason and the key thrown away.

---

Treason would require them trying to act on those words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Treason would require them trying to act on those words.

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:
"compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned) the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir;
violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir;
levied war against the King in his Realm or adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;
counterfeited the Great Seal, the Privy Seal or any of the King's money (reduced to felony in 1861);
imported counterfeit English money (also reduced to felony in 1861);
killed the Chancellor, Treasurer (this office is now in commission), one of the King's Justices (either of the King's Bench or the Common Pleas), a Justice in Eyre or an Assize judge, while they are performing their offices.

---

Interestingly, if they had been charged with treason in the UK before 1998, theoretically, they could have been hung drawn and quartered.

Words aren't really aid or comfort. It would take a lot of legalist hoop jumps to make it seem so too.

William Joyce would have agreed with you. Alas, they hanged him for treason.

I can't really say anything better than what Scurvy already said.

Careless words are one thing, solicitation of violence another. Some of the statements those men made were a *bit* grey, others were plainly calls for violence. As such, they get what's coming to them. If I stood outside my town hall and called for people to bomb the nation's capital, you could be sure I'd be spending some time in a FPMIA prison.

Further I couldn't agree more that we need to be careful about what types of speech aren't 'free', esp. in today's age where paranoia and risk avoidance is rife. This however seems to be a somewhat fair implementation of the law. Calling on people to 'organize' and 'march' are clearly peaceful means of protesting and trying to bring about change, and clearly are not the same as calling for blood to flow in the streets.

:shrug:

Well, I think there is a difference between a few careless words in private and shouting around in front of an embassy so that everybody shall hear it. Just like there is a difference between peeing on your kitchen table in your home and peeing on a table in a restaurant.

6 years? Are you kidding me?

I'm lucky I don't live in the UK, I'd be arrested every other week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

6 years? Are you kidding me?

I'm lucky I don't live in the UK, I'd be arrested every other week.

---

You actively encourage people to ignite incendiary devices and kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you should be.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's pick a group that you personally and other Leftys don't feel a need to defend. What if I walked around saying the KKK was right, and there was nothing wrong with America that a few lynchings couldn't cure.* What if I then threw a rally and actively encouraged people in the audience to go home and lynch a few Jews, African-Americans (except I wouldn't use that term), and Irishmen? Then, what if all of a sudden, a few Jews, Irishmen and African-Americans started turning up swaying from ropes in towns where I visited and held rallies (though I could prove I had nothing to do with the act itself). Do you think you'd still be so blase' about the affect of hate-speech and incitement to violence?

*Note: My apologies to Jews, Irishmen, African-Americans and people of good taste everywhere for the ugliness of this analogy. While distateful as I find the Klan, I do believe my comparison frames the issue where it belongs: a question of responsibility and inciting violence, not muzzling of free speech.

Giving someone six years for something he said is not right, since nobody acted on this. Average Joe Sixpack can say that nation X should be bombed, that doesn't make him a criminal, just a first grade :daisy:. If someone had actually performed attacks on UK, Denmark or whatever, then those men who were jailed would bear a part of the guilt and should be put away. Otherwise, those are just words. Did jailing the men have any effect on the security of UK citizens? Such acts can only make things worse. If a man can be jailed for six years for saying "Bomb the UK!" what should then be done about the original author of those offensive drawings of Muhammad? Luckily, Denmark seems to be a bit more democratic than UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You actively encourage people to ignite incendiary devices and kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you should be.

---

Shouting at a demonstration? How is that "actively encouraging"?

Btw, is this the same as support your own troops in a war(like Iraq)? After all, they are "igniting incendiary devices and killing innocent civilians"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Shouting at a demonstration? How is that "actively encouraging"?

Btw, is this the same as support your own troops in a war(like Iraq)? After all, they are "igniting incendiary devices and killing innocent civilians"...

---

I edited my post above, to further expand my thoughts on the matter. Please treat that as a response.

How many bombs have blown up in Denmark lately?

Anyway, I do not have a problem with what your analogy, I see that as part of the free speech thingy. Solutions to that problem would be:

1. Debating against you/educated the people to believe that you are wrong.
2. Safety measures towards those who would be affected by any violence.

I won't under any circumstance support punishing people for what they say. That goes for the KKK, Al Qaida wannabes, Nazi's, red brigades, etc. too. I don't like them or their views, I may even hate them both, but I won't support legal action against their ideas. There are two reasons for this:

1. I don't think it's effective(unless, of course, we're talking in a big brother scale, but I certainly don't want that).
2. It's a principle thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How many bombs have blown up in Denmark lately?

Anyway, I do not have a problem with what your analogy, I see that as part of the free speech thingy. Solutions to that problem would be:

1. Debating against you/educated the people to believe that you are wrong.
2. Safety measures towards those who would be affected by any violence.

I won't under any circumstance support punishing people for what they say. That goes for the KKK, Al Qaida wannabes, Nazi's, red brigades, etc. too. I don't like them or their views, I may even hate them both, but I won't support legal action against their ideas. There are two reasons for this:

1. I don't think it's effective(unless, of course, we're talking in a big brother scale, but I certainly don't want that).
2. It's a principle thing.

---

Aaah, but there was an attack planned for Britain, correct? Personally, I think you're guaranteeing yourself a hatful of trouble if you codify your laws such that inciting violence is only a crime if you're successful.

That being said, I salute you for your Voltaire like absolutist view of free speech. I assume you are okay with yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater as an expression of free speech?

Well HoreTore you're entitled to your opinion, but I think what you're saying is absurd. Even moreso than in the other thread where you supported anybody who'd commit treason against *any* government. Limiting people on what they can say or do is dangerous, but laissez-faire just as much. Finding a good ballance isn't easy but dropping the ball altogether is asking to be bombed.

How long would a nation last that lets people say "Bomb [insert country]" unpunished? If Norway was threatened by terrorism as much as the UK or the US wouldn't you want it to protect itself (that is, her citizens)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Aaah, but there was an attack planned for Britain, correct? Personally, I think you're guaranteeing yourself a hatful of trouble if you codify your laws such that inciting violence is only a crime if you're successful.

That being said, I salute you for your Voltaire like absolutist view of free speech. I assume you are okay with yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater as an expression of free speech?

---

That's public disturbance and being an idiot, it has nothing to do with the political debate and as such isn't part of free speech. Remember, free speech protects political statements(yes, bombing a place is political), not whether you can yell "LALALALALA" into the ears of strangers for hours.

Back on topic, I'm mostly concerned with where this may lead. Let's take an example:

I'm reading the paper at work, and it says that Bush has been an idiot again. I say that somebody ought to whack that idiot(both things happen far too often), and we all laugh at the president. However, one of the guys I work with turns out to be an idiot too. And he doesn't like Bush either. So, at that moment, he decides he should whack Mr. Bush. He kills him, gets caught, and the police ask him where he got the idea. He says that he got the idea when I said that someone should do it. Suddenly, I'm stuck behind bars for 100 years.

That's not a world I want to live in.

I could see these fellows being busted for inciting to riot, and maybe given a few months in jail and probation - but, 6 years seems a bit extreme. Of course in the USA they'ld have found themselves living in Gitmo without the opportunity of a trial. So, I suppose it is something that they had a trial. Pity they didn't have a decent legal team to stress the freedom of speech thingy. By the standards used in this one a number of Bushys could be prosecuted for fear mongering and the spreading of hate against all Muslims.

Then again, some have the right to spread hate - others don't.

I don't get a bad taste in my mouth at all. Not when I think of the consequences of such insane incitements to violence. In fact I am slowly waxing militant on the issue. Guilty as hell. Fair sentences. Good show. Rah rah.

KC has a good point. I wouldn't argue whether these jokers should have been convicted and sentenced, but the extent of the sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

How long would a nation last that lets people say "Bomb [insert country]" unpunished? If Norway was threatened by terrorism as much as the UK or the US wouldn't you want it to protect itself (that is, her citizens)?

---

It would last forever. Terrorism isn't capable of bringing down a nation, an invasion is. And I'm not too concerned about Iranian soldiers marching to invade us....

Spend the counter-terrorism money on finding a cure for cancer, aid against aids and starvation in africa etc. It'll save QUITE a few more lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It would last forever. Terrorism isn't capable of bringing down a nation, an invasion is. And I'm not too concerned about Iranian soldiers marching to invade us....

Spend the counter-terrorism money on finding a cure for cancer, aid against aids and starvation in africa etc. It'll save QUITE a few more lives.

---

HoreTore, I urge you to consider the ramifications of a view such as this. Your view with regards to terrorism is that we should simply ignore it and it will go away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

HoreTore, I urge you to consider the ramifications of a view such as this. Your view with regards to terrorism is that we should simply ignore it and it will go away?

---

It's quite hyped, yes. I'd worry more about cancer or getting in a car crash with a drunk idiot. Both are FAR more likely.

We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.

We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It's quite hyped, yes. I'd worry more about cancer or getting in a car crash with a drunk idiot. Both are FAR more likely.

We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.

We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.

---

Throughout history, everytime somebody has advocated ignorning a known threat with the assertion that given time, it will diminish of its own accord, its been a disaster for mankind. Ask ole Neville Chamberlain how well that approach worked for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

we should simply ignore it and it will go away?

---

Of course! Where do you think the word 'terrorist' comes from? If you let him scare you :daisy:, he won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

Of course! Where do you think the word 'terrorist' comes from? If you let him scare you :daisy:, he won.

---

If he blows you to pieces he's won too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It's quite hyped, yes. I'd worry more about cancer or getting in a car crash with a drunk idiot. Both are FAR more likely.

We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.

We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.

---

That's jolly big of you. Perhaps you might change your mind if you had to go and tell the victims families that their son/daughter/husband/wife et al were blown to smithereens just so you can feel the rosy glow of self righteousness. :shame:

Honestly, some people. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

That's jolly big of you. Perhaps you might change your mind if you had to go and tell the victims families that their son/daughter/husband/wife et al were blown to smithereens just so you can feel the rosy glow of self righteousness. :shame:

---

I'll do that right after you start telling the countless african families dying of disease and hunger why you think it's more important to protect a few thousands rather than their millions. I'll bet I'll finish first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Throughout history, everytime somebody has advocated ignorning a known threat with the assertion that given time, it will diminish of its own accord, its been a disaster for mankind. Ask ole Neville Chamberlain how well that approach worked for him.

---

Do you seriously believe that any muslim country has the ability to invade europe? Or all of them put together? Or do you think the muslims we have here are capable of overthrowing our government and military?

I really, really, really, honestly can't see that happening. Now, if you were talking about Russia, it'd be something else. They actually have the ability. The middle east don't. Not by a long shot.

Quote:

---

I'll do that right after you start telling the countless african families dying of disease and hunger why you think it's more important to protect a few thousands rather than their millions. I'll bet I'll finish first.

---

I will, immediately after I call for Africans to die slow painful deaths.

So in your mind it's a 'numbers game'?

Good grief. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Do you seriously believe that any muslim country has the ability to invade europe?

---

Some would argue that they already are invading...just no blitzkrieg of any kind. There'll be no need of a Quisling this go-around either, just time and cultural relativism.

“If a man can be jailed for six years for saying "Bomb the UK!" what should then be done about the original author of those offensive drawings of Muhammad”:
So you are telling that saying to kill, slaughter is comparable with a drawing… Hitler spreading hate is like a drawing… Well, all start by words… :inquisitive:
This demonstration was not against the war in Iraq, it was against drawings… I find as well it is a little bit too much, but to wear a Suicide bomber in Uniform was not a good idea….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Some would argue that they already are invading...just no blitzkrieg of any kind. There'll be no need of a Quisling this go-around either, just time and cultural relativism.

---

That's a lunatic conspiracy. To say that the average arab came here because he wanted to take over our lands by slowly making us view them as "just as good as us" instead of "horrible barbarians", well, that's....quite far off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I will, immediately after I call for Africans to die slow painful deaths.

So in your mind it's a 'numbers game'?

Good grief. :wall:

---

It is a numbers game. We will save more people by helping africa than with counter-terrorism. That's all that matters to me. In a perfect world, nobody should die, of course. However, we live in one where a lot of people die, and I want to save as many of them as possible. To me, that's the only moral thing to do. And we will save a lot more in africa than by counter-terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is a numbers game. We will save more people by helping africa than with counter-terrorism. That's all that matters to me. In a perfect world, nobody should die, of course. However, we live in one where a lot of people die, and I want to save as many of them as possible. To me, that's the only moral thing to do. And we will save a lot more in africa than by counter-terrorism.

---

Let's take this back to basics.

At what point is violence justified?

Is it justified in Personal Self Defense?

Is it justified in Defense of family & friends?

How about in Defense of community? At what level of community?

Is it legitimate to defend your property as well as your person?

Is it legitimate to defend the property of another?

Is it legitimate to defend the property of the community at large?



You seem to be asserting that counter-terrorism is preventing efforts to minimize counter-AIDS efforts?

My country, I assure you, is funding efforts against both with Billions of US$.

Are you truly comfortable with saying something along the lines of:

"Terrorist attacks on the undefended city of Narvik will kill 1500 people in this year, but since the money was spent on helping to eradicate Malaria in Benin and we can be reasonably certain that 2500 people who would have died from malaria in Benin have not do so that this was a spending success for the year."

Woudl your countrymen agree with you?

A bit of clairfying my position.

I don't belive that the UK should have let them walk away with no extra attention. However my root problem here is the six year sentence for advocatinig, not doing, bombing. I can understand probation, extra ploice attention and maybe a few months of jail, but years seem too harsh.

Off topic: Surprisly searching the Org. for U.S. terror threats dosn't turn to the backroom once. 90% of the two pages are mods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Off topic: Surprisly searching the Org. for U.S. terror threats dosn't turn to the backroom once. 90% of the two pages are mods.

---

The Backroom does't show up in any searches. If you look for all posts by Don Corleone, you won't see anything I write in the backroom, which is 98% of what I write.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Let's take this back to basics.

At what point is violence justified?

Is it justified in Personal Self Defense?

Is it justified in Defense of family & friends?

How about in Defense of community? At what level of community?

Is it legitimate to defend your property as well as your person?

Is it legitimate to defend the property of another?

Is it legitimate to defend the property of the community at large?

---

That's really another discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You seem to be asserting that counter-terrorism is preventing efforts to minimize counter-AIDS efforts?

My country, I assure you, is funding efforts against both with Billions of US$.

---

And yet there are still millions dying of it. There is no denying that if we put the counter-terrorism money into aids/hunger prevention, will save more lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Are you truly comfortable with saying something along the lines of:

"Terrorist attacks on the undefended city of Narvik will kill 1500 people in this year, but since the money was spent on helping to eradicate Malaria in Benin and we can be reasonably certain that 2500 people who would have died from malaria in Benin have not do so that this was a spending success for the year."

---

No, I would not, as people were still dying. However, I'd be more uncomfortable saying the opposite. In the second option, more people will die, I don't care who they are, but as more people are going to die there, I'd save them rather than fewer people somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Woudl your countrymen agree with you?

---

Very likely, as you picked Narvik, which is located in northern norway. Nobody cares about northern norway, not even the northern-norvegians themselves, as they migrate/flee south to civilized lands. Btw, I didn't know 1500 people existed up there.... Or did you count deer and fish too?

*quickly closes the thread before northern norwegian gf sees it*

We do the same thing in the U.S.A. Advocate the death of a person, or send them letters demanding their death, and you'll get in trouble with the law. As an earlier poster said, this is where you run into the limits of free speech.

Last weekend more than a dozen envelopes bearing the image of skull and crossbones and containing letters threatening the lives of CU-Boulder evolutionary biology professors were slipped under the doors of CU-Boulder buildings.

According to a reprint of the letter posted online, the threat reads: “every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.”

“EBIO (evolutionary biology) professors are terrorists against America and intellectual and spiritual child abusers of their young and impressionable students the EBIO department not only blasphemes God, who is invisible, but it blasphemes His Only Begotten Son and our Messiah, Jesus Christ, which is more unforgivable for all these reason all God-fearing and Truth-loving persons must say, They must go!”

As you can see, the letter-writer doesn't even specifically threaten the evolutionary biology teachers. He just advocates that they be murdered. Nevertheless, the police want to arrest him. I think this makes plenty of sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

:daisy:

---

What matters more than saving lives? Why should I care more about saving one norwegian than 2 africans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What matters more than saving lives?

---

Hmmm...let's see.....I know :idea2: a good start might be not advocating violence.

:wall:

I've prolly saved a dozen or so lives in my life. Take it from me, they were grateful.

Typical leftist reasoning though. Let's equate some loonytune advocating death to their fellow subjects with AIDS in Africa.

Straight out of the Stalinist handbook. How to rule a country. ( And get away with it!)

Quote:

---

We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.

We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.

---

The idea of a country's government is to protect its citizens first over anyone else's. Your argument would hold more weight if you were talking about a global government, but you're not. Most people could care less about starving people 3000 miles away. They make to make sure their loved ones, friends, and family are safe.

Well, to HoreTore's credit, he's not shy about admitting that he is an avowed Marxist and believes heavily in global socialism. I think based on his views of industry as bad, he's technically more of a Maoist than a Stalinist, but your point is valid, IA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Hmmm...let's see.....I know :idea2: a good start might be not advocating violence.

:wall:

I've prolly saved a dozen or so lives in my life. Take it from me, they were grateful.

Typical leftist reasoning though. Let's equate some loonytune advocating death to their fellow subjects with AIDS in Africa.

Straight out of the Stalinist handbook. How to rule a country. ( And get away with it!)

---

What....on earth are you talking about? When did I advocate violence? When have I EVER said that I agree with violence? And I haven't "equated some loonytune with aids victims" either, I've said that we can save more lives by doing other things than what we are currently doing. I've said that we will save more lives by helping africa than we will by counter-terrorism.

I really, really don't understand you one bit, and I doubt I will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, to HoreTore's credit, he's not shy about admitting that he is an avowed Marxist and believes heavily in global socialism. I think based on his views of industry as bad, he's technically more of a Maoist than a Stalinist, but your point is valid, IA.

---

Not even close, unfortunately :laugh4:

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc. are all madmen in my opinion. I view them simply as dictators/tyrants. Whether the dictator in question is a capitalist or a socialist doesn't matter to me, he's still a bloody dictator.

I'm a very big fan of industry too, just not a big fan of the "let's lay off half the staff and make the rest work double shifts until we move it to [insert random 3. world country here]"-industry. I believe in worker-controlled means of production, as opposed to state-controlled(like Lenin and his merry men).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

The idea of a country's government is to protect its citizens first over anyone else's. Your argument would hold more weight if you were talking about a global government, but you're not. Most people could care less about starving people 3000 miles away. They make to make sure their loved ones, friends, and family are safe.

---

Well, I think that's wrong. I care just as much(or little) about my fellow countrymen as those in Thailand or anywhere else. But then I'm a big fan of global governments too....

EDIT: but your argument is, of course, both true and valid. I just disagree....

Quote:

---

I really, really don't understand you one bit, and I doubt I will.

---

Clueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Clueless.

---

Care to explain a little bit...?

A gentle reminder to debate the opinion, not attack the poster.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Bah Horetore! How can you talk about malaria and hunger while the UK is waging war against Muslims and Islam! Why do you allow yourself to be fooled by British and American propaganda in this way? Hunger and poverty are the result of the actions of these satans. They are the deliberate means by which they oppress your brothers and sisters. There will be no more hunger once they are destructed and the will of Allah rules the world. :yes:

And why are you talking about freedom, about freedom of speech? These are the manipulative, deceitful instruments of western hypocracy and hatred:

http://britishoppression.com/images/...artoondemo.gif


https://img54.imageshack.us/img54/85...rotest5ih1.jpg


[/ sarcasm]
Or is it sarcasm? My statements above are not very different from what a quick browsing of websites had to say about this subject. In the opinion of what, I assume to be, a good many Muslims, the imprisonment of these four is the latest chapter in Britains ongoing war with Islam.

Islamicism is very much a modern movement, at least in its methods. You don't need to go to a madrassa in Islamabad or the mountains of Afghanistan to find its source. All you need is the internet. There you can read all the inspiration behind the thoughts that led these four men to call for anti-British terrorism.

Some 'internet Jihad' views of our topic:
Release the Muslim hostages.
Captives UK.
British Oppression.
They have many links too other sources too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Throughout history, everytime somebody has advocated ignorning a known threat with the assertion that given time, it will diminish of its own accord, its been a disaster for mankind. Ask ole Neville Chamberlain how well that approach worked for him.

---

I hate to throw this in here, but it leapt to my mind so quickly when I saw your post that I just had to.

It seems that ignoring the known threat of global warming is exactly what conservative idealogy advocates.

Why should we then not simply say "poo-poo" when conservatives tell us they want to spend billions of our tax dollars on the GWOT?

Disclaimer: I am certainly no global warming alarmist. In fact, I am quite happy to ignore the entire issue myself. But it seems to me that if the global warming fear-mongers are even 20% correct, then global warming will be responsible for far more global upheaval and death than terrorism ever could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I hate to throw this in here, but it leapt to my mind so quickly when I saw your post that I just had to.

It seems that ignoring the known threat of global warming is exactly what conservative idealogy advocates.

Why should we then not simply say "poo-poo" when conservatives tell us they want to spend billions of our tax dollars on the GWOT?

Disclaimer: I am certainly no global warming alarmist. In fact, I am quite happy to ignore the entire issue myself. But it seems to me that if the global warming fear-mongers are even 20% correct, then global warming will be responsible for far more global upheaval and death than terrorism ever could.

---

First off, welcome back mate. Good to see you.

Second, I personally advocate intelligent responses to elevated temperature, assuming we know that it's caused my man's actions, not part of a larger cyclical action. Note the keyword known.

Finally, what on Earth has this got to do with whether people should have the legal right to encourage others to go bomb innocent civilians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horetore

That's really another discussion.

---

But its not. These questions are central to the moral justification for a war against terrorism. If we -- as good little Lockeans -- view life, liberty and property as central human rights (and I do), and consider government to be the result of a mutually agreed upon social contract to maintain/enahance same, then it would be hard to argue against the correctness of a war against terrorism in the context of the government's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens. Doesn't mean we should help others where possible -- charity is an enobling virtue -- but it is NOT the prime purpose of government.

I suspect, my marxist friend (Originalist Marxist? Trotskyite? Frankfurt School? Wobbly? -- clearly not a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist based on your other comments), that you would answer these questions far differently than I, and thereby display an intellectual context radically different than most of the posters here. Love to see you have a go at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horetore

*quickly closes the thread before northern norwegian gf sees it*

---

:laugh4: You sound like a Tidewater native talking about West Virginia....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

But its not. These questions are central to the moral justification for a war against terrorism. If we -- as good little Lockeans -- view life, liberty and property as central human rights (and I do), and consider government to be the result of a mutually agreed upon social contract to maintain/enahance same, then it would be hard to argue against the correctness of a war against terrorism in the context of the government's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens. Doesn't mean we should help others where possible -- charity is an enobling virtue -- but it is NOT the prime purpose of government.

I suspect, my marxist friend (Originalist Marxist? Trotskyite? Frankfurt School? Wobbly? -- clearly not a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist based on your other comments), that you would answer these questions far differently than I, and thereby display an intellectual context radically different than most of the posters here. Love to see you have a go at them.

---

I'm a hardcore pacifist too, so war isn't an option, pure and simple ~;) I don't see the prime purpose of government to protect, I believe it to be caring for it's citizens well-being. But as I am a big fan of a world government(an effective one, I might add), I don't differentiate between "our citizens" and "your citizens".

As for my status, well... It's mix and match. I have the structural belief of Marx, so I have no problem with being labeled a Marxist. But I'm also a pacifist, reformist(as opposed to revolutionary), industrialist and a somewhat lazy enviromentalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

First off, welcome back mate. Good to see you.

---

Thanks my friend. Good to be back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Second, I personally advocate intelligent responses to elevated temperature, assuming we know that it's caused my man's actions, not part of a larger cyclical action. Note the keyword known.

Finally, what on Earth has this got to do with whether people should have the legal right to encourage others to go bomb innocent civilians?

---

Sorry, I did you a bit of an injustice there. Your point was that ignoring threats/warnings can only lead to disaster. In my response, I was pointing out that ignoring the warning/threat of global warming is precisely what mainstream conservative dogma would have us do.

I am guilty of stereotyping you into the current conservative groupthink without really considering what your individual views on the issue are.

:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I am guilty of stereotyping you into the current conservative groupthink without really considering what your individual views on the issue are.

:shame:

---

Come on! We need some more self-flagellation here! Perhaps some grovelling and cringing as well....:devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I am guilty of stereotyping you into the current conservative groupthink without really considering what your individual views on the issue are.

:shame:

---

Well, we all know I would never dream of doing such a thing... :no:

So either a pass as payment for past wrongs, assuming you can remember where I've done the same, or for future ones.

One of these days, we need to start an omnibus bitch'n'moan thread where you have to find a way to link each and every cause d'jour that you hold forth on. God, talk about fireworks!

:argue: Aaah! But you can't be opposed to 3rd trimester abortions unless you also support gay marriage and a balanced budget ammendment.

:argue: Nonsense! Your whole argument falls apart because you refuse to recognize that animals are entitled to civil rights, that polygamy should be legally allowed, and the US played almost no role in WWII!

:thinking2: