Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on August 10, 2006, 02:42:59 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm
A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.
It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested about 18 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months.
I can see a marketing up-side to all this - they could sell "approved" juice and water in-flight (moreso than currently). If they continue to block books and newspapers they can sell them too! It's win-win for security and commerce.
-
<< is flying to america in less than a month
I love good omens.
-
dude, come visit me. you could do BSG night with us, and we usually get smashed, (although there's a margin of error that goes from tipsy to *bleeeegh*). im over at North Carolina State University, Bowen 401. i know, the south can be scary, but near universities its ok.
-
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/net/20060810/large.4034684999151405510b7fcf0331b6a8.pjpeg)
(http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/10/world/10britain4_650.jpg)
Passengers waiting to check in at Manchester Airport shifted personal items to clear plastic bags per security rules implemented Thursday.
I notice they don't say anything about no hard liquor on the plane. Wooo, let's all get drunk and do Immelmanns in a 747!
-
It was apparently the work of 'Islamic Facists', according to Bush. Wonder what their leader is called, Mohammussolini? And I bet Nazis were involved too... Illinois Nazis! Fear them.
-
This has got me unbelievably pissed right now. My best friend that I haven't seen in four years is coming down for just five days - and their flight got canceled because of this bull****. From Florida to the carribbean, what the ****ing hell!?
-
Yeah, it's a massive overreaction. Flights aren't more dangerous now than they were two days ago - They're safer, given that the bad guys were caught. This kind of post-incident show of force is meaningless except in the targeted areas (which would be Heathrow and definitely not the carribbean).
-
So how long do we think it will be until the only thing allowed on a plane is your nude self?
-
Well, I guess I'll just have to load up on sleeping pills rather than spend 7 hours with no DS, mp3s, or novels....
-
wait you cant take any of that stuff on now? (DS,mp3 n what not)
where you goin in the states aldo
-
I have a feeling a lot of this is simply hype to get bush's approval ratings up.
Maybe those guys were planning something, but they got caught so why should the rest of us worry?
-
IIRC they want you to turn on your electronics crap to make sure it really works and isn't just bomb casing.
-
So wait... as a diabetic, I require insulin which is liquid. Am I not allowed to bring that onto planes anymore? If so, looks like I'll be road tripping until things calm down. :blah: :confused:
-
Medicines are allowed apparently. But don't be surprised if they ask to inspect them.
-
Blargg, what a pain.
[Useless information]Blargg is the name of the volcanic dinosaur that resides in the lava on certain stages of Super Mario World, by the way.[/Useless information]
-
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/10/if_the_liquid_could_.html
-
Insulin and baby formula are allowed, but you have to prove it isn't explosive.
They banned books on airplanes?!? And the DS/PSP too?!? I can maybe understand the game system ban, but books???
-
They banned books on airplanes?!? And the DS/PSP too?!? I can maybe understand the game system ban, but books???
Books can be very dangerous. We're in the middle of a war/terror alert, we can't go off and do something as dangerous to national security as reading......
-
And big brother is laughing his way all the way to a new election.
-
As my history teacher once said back when Blair was first around, whoever wins the election the government always gets into power.
-
Yeah, it's a massive overreaction. Flights aren't more dangerous now than they were two days ago - They're safer, given that the bad guys were caught. This kind of post-incident show of force is meaningless except in the targeted areas (which would be Heathrow and definitely not the carribbean).
I heard someone say that there were still 5 (?) suspects at large...
-
Suspects being the operative word. From what I recall, one suspect has already been released without charge, and the BBC visited one of the locations (a lockup, with owners' permission) under surveillance by the police for 3 months....and found it to be full of cake.
-
Isn't being a suspect cause enough to be shot in the head at point blank range while already restrained by a police officer these days, anyway? Or is that only if you are sporting an above-average tan? The whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't seem to hold much water lately :blah:
-
Suspects being the operative word. From what I recall, one suspect has already been released without charge, and the BBC visited one of the locations (a lockup, with owners' permission) under surveillance by the police for 3 months....and found it to be full of cake.
It's smoke and mirrors.
Public opinion starts to sway against the current government, they fabricate or pick that time to make arrests and claim they foiled a terrorist attack etc. to encourage people to think about other things and forget about the government for a while. They also take the oppertunity to impose some new "Big Brother" laws of oppression. It's a double blow every time.
What I find fascinating is that untill now (post 9/11) there was nowhere near this level of apparent terrorist threat. Did we just not notice before? Did 9/11 cause hundreds of average people to take up arms and become terrorists themselves? Or is the whole thing a convenient excuse to squeeze power out of the peoples hands and into those of the politicians/overlords.
-
All nude planes I say! That'll solve the problems. We'll make the planes all clear too so everyone can see everything that everyone is doing.
-
What I find fascinating is that untill now (post 9/11) there was nowhere near this level of apparent terrorist threat. Did we just not notice before? Did 9/11 cause hundreds of average people to take up arms and become terrorists themselves?
Pre-911, most terrorist activity was in 3rd world countries (Africa, for example - where's the outcry over the thousands killed there?), or in Israel. While 911 may have been a wake-up call for the west to the dangers of terrorism, I also see it as a wake-up call to terrorists - they saw the potential terror they could inflict upon even the most powerful countries.
And with all the *****ing over how Israel's "disproportionate response" is only generating more terrorists, why do you prefer government conspiracy theories to 911 having inspired more terrorists to aim higher?
-
I dare say that anything that happens in the middle-east can be pointed to generating more terrorists at the moment. You may be right about 9/11 showing terrorists what trouble they could make in the western world.
-
All nude planes I say! That'll solve the problems. We'll make the planes all clear too so everyone can see everything that everyone is doing.
*books Icefire on a Saga holiday* :p
-
I dare say that anything that happens in the middle-east can be pointed to generating more terrorists at the moment. You may be right about 9/11 showing terrorists what trouble they could make in the western world.
I can't help but wonder how many ordinary Muslims were disgusted at what was being done 'in their name' at 9/11 and soforth. Easy to assume the people shown celebrating on the streets (****s, the lot of them) are the majority, when in reality it's usually only the most vehement few percent (at most) people in a population you'd see out in the street.
-
Are these the vehement ones you're talking about? The ones protesting in your backyard?
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00051.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00054.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00057.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00060.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00063.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00066.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00069.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00072.jpg)
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00075.jpg)
-
And you think those are the majority, do you?
-
You know... free speach is all good and well, but is it really right to keep someone in your country who publically wants to destroy that country?
I can't help but feel that if they hate Europe/The West so much, they should make a fine start by getting the hell out.
-
And you think those are the majority, do you?
You think they misrepresent Islam?
-
And you think those are the majority, do you?
You think they misrepresent Islam?
I notice you've not answered the question.
You know... free speach is all good and well, but is it really right to keep someone in your country who publically wants to destroy that country?
I can't help but feel that if they hate Europe/The West so much, they should make a fine start by getting the hell out.
Why not deport the BNP at the same time? I mean, we don't view British citizens as being any less British due to their skin colour or religion, so the BNP are also trying to destroy the country.....unfortunately, we just can't kick out the ****s without destroying the basis of our own freedoms.
-
Are these the vehement ones you're talking about? The ones protesting in your backyard?
*snip*
Oh noes! There are people with offensive opinions! Head for the hills!
People like that have been are for a long, long time, and they're all over the world. They're called assholes, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a country without 'em. My mind wanders back to that video posted a month or two back showing an American Nazi-esque group protesting in New York or something [y'know, the unintentionally funny one with the guy yelling 'JEWS!!' a couple of times] as an example of people like this don't really prove anything, only that they're assholes.
And you think those are the majority, do you?
You think they misrepresent Islam?
I don't know the ins-and-outs of Islam, so I can't comment on whether protesting in the street about an impending 'European 9/11' is part of Islam, but i'm wondering if you are well-enough versed in Islam to comment on the relevance of those images. Seriously, i'm actually rather curious on what the religion itself says on the matter.
-
You think they misrepresent Islam?
Considering that the Koran is no more violent than the Torah or Bible I'd say that your religions are all as bad as each other. Read into that whatever you wish :p
There's a big difference between religion and culture.
-
I notice you've not answered the question.
True.
I think they currently represent a growing minority of British Muslims. When they represent a majority, you'll be in deep dish doo-doo.
World-wide, I honestly cannot say. I haven't been to any Muslim countries. But how often throughout history has it required a majority of people to screw things up?
You think they misrepresent Islam?
Considering that the Koran is no more violent than the Torah or Bible I'd say that your religions are all as bad as each other. Read into that whatever you wish :p
There's a big difference between religion and culture.
In the West, perhaps there's a big difference. Not in the Mid-East.
And you obviously haven't read the Koran/Bible/Torah.
-
And you think those are the majority, do you?
You think they misrepresent Islam?
QFT.
(I feel so urbran putting that :) )
-
In the West, perhaps there's a big difference. Not in the Mid-East.
And you obviously haven't read the Koran/Bible/Torah.
You've completely contradicted yourself. The fact that there is a difference between a western and middle-eastern muslim pretty much proves my point that the problems are cultural not religious.
-
This all harks back to the point both myself and an0n made over at warpstorm - that these guys are schoolboys compared to the IRA - yet strangely they inspire more fear, in both the media, the government and as a result the population.
The sections of our society they claim to represent are even given special treatment so they don't feel "blamed". It's almost as if our own government is admitting to being afraid of them.
Perhaps its the medieval mindset, or the sheer suicidal fanaticism that allows for such over-reaction - but they don't have a long term strategy. They don't have an end-goal except religious dominance, which will never happen even if all western governments were to fall tomorrow.
The question is, how do we stem the tide of fanatics long enough for more moderate elements in the Islamic religion to take control, and for more liberal doctrines to take hold in the Islamic community? We're talking at least 25 years here (thats just for western societies, not arab nations).
I think the key is in refusing to refer to Muslims in the UK as "British Muslims" and rather just British nationals. Remove the religious divide that is planted in our everyday language, and thus remind those in Islamic communities that when these people attack, they're attacking all of us and remind non-muslims of the same thing.
These guys are dangerous, but foolish. They're no different from the people who locked Galileo Galilei up.
Of course, tackling the religious divide in the UK means facing an uncomfortable truth (uncomfortable for many people anyway) - that our (Modern British) culture is in effect "better" than that of orthodox islamic communities.
-
It's the religion Kara. I know it's hard to believe but it's the truth. There is some extremely nasty stuff in their religious texts. In many ways Islamic "extremists" are just true followers of the religion. It's like calling a Christian who goes to church once a week an extremist. On that score I believe there are potentially a huge number of extremists out there. It's just not all of them are vocal about it.
-
Why not deport the BNP at the same time? I mean, we don't view British citizens as being any less British due to their skin colour or religion, so the BNP are also trying to destroy the country.....unfortunately, we just can't kick out the ****s without destroying the basis of our own freedoms.
Does the BNP follow a religious cause though? Did they come into this country with those beliefs of destruction?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know much about the BNP. But I thought they at least originally came from this country and weren't following an apparently holy cause.
(http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00072.jpg)
This woman however... I imagine her family didn't descend from this country. I'm fairly sure that if I went to America, got a green card and stood in Times Square holding a sign saying something similar to what hers says - I'd be arrested or have the crap kicked out of me by the locals.
However she's allowed to do this in England? Proclaim her hatered of the country she moved in to and now lives in based on religious reasons and remains untouched?
To me, there's a line seperating those who live in a country and have done all their lives, and are unhappy with the actions of the current government etc. And those who moved into a country to seek shelter and then spend their time inciting race and religious hate against the very country they're now relying upon for support. I'm not suggesting we arrest these people as terrorists, I'm saying that - assuming they moved here - why should we support them if they proclaim such hate for us? Englands infrastructure is shoddy as it is without the added strain of future generations and the arrival of people who're advocating its destruction.
-
This woman however... I imagine her family didn't descend from this country. I'm fairly sure that if I went to America, got a green card and stood in Times Square holding a sign saying something similar to what hers says - I'd be arrested or have the crap kicked out of me by the locals.
However she's allowed to do this in England? Proclaim her hatered of the country she moved in to and now lives in based on religious reasons and remains untouched?
To me, there's a line seperating those who live in a country and have done all their lives, and are unhappy with the actions of the current government etc. And those who moved into a country to seek shelter and then spend their time inciting race and religious hate against the very country they're now relying upon for support. I'm not suggesting we arrest these people as terrorists, I'm saying that - assuming they moved here - why should we support them if they proclaim such hate for us? Englands infrastructure is shoddy as it is without the added strain of future generations and the arrival of people who're advocating its destruction.
You may not what they like to say, but they have the right to say it. I love it how people often complain about nanny-states and scream bloody-murder when rights are taken away, but then turn around to someone with a disliked view and yell 'screw them, someone make 'em shut up!'. See, if you were to go parading around in the middle of Times Square with a sign like that, you wouldn't be arrested, because you are allowed to do that. You'd probably be jumped by some overly-nationalistic dickhead, but you'd be protected by the police, not arrested. Yes, what they are saying is rather disgusting and downright offensive, but to deny them the right to say that is just as disgusting and offensive.
You don't like what she's got to say, fair enough. But if you don't like how people like her have the right to proclaim their view, maybe you should try living in a country where people don't have the right to proclaim their view.
-
Why not deport the BNP at the same time? I mean, we don't view British citizens as being any less British due to their skin colour or religion, so the BNP are also trying to destroy the country.....unfortunately, we just can't kick out the ****s without destroying the basis of our own freedoms.
Does the BNP follow a religious cause though? Did they come into this country with those beliefs of destruction?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know much about the BNP. But I thought they at least originally came from this country and weren't following an apparently holy cause.
[]http://www.hard-light.net/staff/sandwich/photos/muslims_in_england/ATT00072.jpg[/]
This woman however... I imagine her family didn't descend from this country. I'm fairly sure that if I went to America, got a green card and stood in Times Square holding a sign saying something similar to what hers says - I'd be arrested or have the crap kicked out of me by the locals.
However she's allowed to do this in England? Proclaim her hatered of the country she moved in to and now lives in based on religious reasons and remains untouched?
To me, there's a line seperating those who live in a country and have done all their lives, and are unhappy with the actions of the current government etc. And those who moved into a country to seek shelter and then spend their time inciting race and religious hate against the very country they're now relying upon for support. I'm not suggesting we arrest these people as terrorists, I'm saying that - assuming they moved here - why should we support them if they proclaim such hate for us? Englands infrastructure is shoddy as it is without the added strain of future generations and the arrival of people who're advocating its destruction.
Well, should we deport/transports people for criminal offences?
I mean, that's what this is. Her familial history does not matter one bit if she is a british citizen; I think it'd be pretty racist (frankly) to suggest that, for example, we should deport a British Muslim for racist incitement but not, say, a British Christian. Moreso, it'd also be sectarian to deport people for incitement simply because their reasons are religious rather than, say, racial.
To suggest deportation for one particular message of hatred and intolerance, but not for all equivalent messages expressed for different reasons is, to me, simply wrong. Either you apply that punishment fairly and equally, or it becomes its own message of intolerance.
-
I think that depends on the message.
Lets look at this another way. If I went to that womans home country and walked the streets with a sign saying that the people of that country deserved to die and should prepare themselves for it from my own people, if I understand correctly, I'd run the risk of being stoned to death. Yes?
What are we trying to prove then, by allowing someone to come to our own country and proclaim their hatered of us? I'm not suggesting we stone her to death. I'm not suggesting we harm her at all. I'm saying that if these people hate this land so much, why do they stay here? Do I feel good about allowing her to come here and say how much she hates me? Not really! I don't want to see this hatred. I don't hate her - but I hate the message she carries.
And when does the right to free speach become the right to free action? A man is allowed to walk around with a sign saying "you deserve to die, and my people will make it so" - he's even protected - but if he follows through then he's arrested. Should we not - in our hunt for terrorists in this country - start with those who publically state these things? The message is tantamount to "I am a terrorist and/or support their cause", but we turn a blind eye untill something happens...
Then we're up in arms. It's a media frenzy. How can these (now) evil people be allowed to be in our country? How did our leaders not stop them before this happened?
So now I'll answer your question. Anyone who expresses the belief that an entire country of people deserves to be killed should not be allowed to remain in that country. Why should that countries people live in fear of those who would wish harm upon them? I do not hate Iraq or the people thereof. I don't hate any country in that fashion infact. If I did I wouldn't go there and say as much - and I expect the same from them.
The alternative? We all express our hatred of eachother. We become terrorists. We blow things up and a lot of people die. Everyone cries about how it shouldn't have been, and how can these people be allowed to live in that country... and the grand cycle continues. As one of the resident white middle class people of England - I'm tired of the countries wishy-washy approach to its more serious law enforcement. Don't misunderstand me, there's a world of difference between that and advocating a nanny state. In a simple phrase..
..Those who wish us harm should not be allowed to be in a position where they are capable of doing so. You choose to publically wish for war and death upon a country and its people - you shouldn't cry if you get chucked out of that country.
-
If they are born in this country, regardless of parentage, then they do not 'come to this country' any more than you or I have come to it.
-
I'm agreeing with Kalfireth. The somewhat local and recent arrest of multiple people on terrorism charges here in Canada has revealed some deep seated hatred for us Canadians. Some of that coming from those born here and some of that coming from those who have come from their countries to our country. Canada is probably amongst the best countries in the world for having an open door to people looking for a new life without necessarilly having to give up their entire culture. But it irks me that these people can come into my country and then declare that they want to destroy us for what we are. Why are they here? Why are they teaching their children this stuff?
-
I'm agreeing with Kalfireth. The somewhat local and recent arrest of multiple people on terrorism charges here in Canada has revealed some deep seated hatred for us Canadians. Some of that coming from those born here and some of that coming from those who have come from their countries to our country. Canada is probably amongst the best countries in the world for having an open door to people looking for a new life without necessarilly having to give up their entire culture. But it irks me that these people can come into my country and then declare that they want to destroy us for what we are. Why are they here? Why are they teaching their children this stuff?
Deportation of resident aliens (or whatever the term is) is fine, but what about when you're talking about citizens born in the country?
As an aside, on the specific issue of muslim extremism, IIRC the small minority of 'death to the west' style Muslims in the UK are almost entirely all both young and British born; from what I recall, those who emigrate and are of the older (i.e. parents, grandparents) generation are much less likely to have these kinds of views.
-
It's the religion Kara. I know it's hard to believe but it's the truth. There is some extremely nasty stuff in their religious texts.
Sorry but that's a load of bollocks. Show me any of these nasty lines from the Koran and I'll show you equally nasty stuff from the bible to match it.
In many ways Islamic "extremists" are just true followers of the religion. It's like calling a Christian who goes to church once a week an extremist. On that score I believe there are potentially a huge number of extremists out there. It's just not all of them are vocal about it.
No it's like calling the christian fundementalists in America extremists. Which they are. Does that make all christian's extremists? Of course it doesn't.
So now I'll answer your question. Anyone who expresses the belief that an entire country of people deserves to be killed should not be allowed to remain in that country.
Are you going to tell Nuke that he has to leave America then? :p
-
It's not for me to enforce, but that's the beauty of my freedom of speach - I can say what I think :)
But I'm not preaching the destruction of a people or country. I'm calling for the security of my own. I want to be able to live my life here, safe in the knowledge that I won't be blown up, shot, gassed or murdered by those that publically proclaim hatred of me (as a people) and my country.
Don't get me wrong on this. I don't like England or the country it's becoming. But I'm not calling for its destruction.
Surely it's the duty of each and every government to ensure the protection of the people it represents. By allowing those that would call for my destruction to remain in this country, are they really doing that?
-
It's not for me to enforce, but that's the beauty of my freedom of speach - I can say what I think :)
But these people obviously can't. Fair enough.
-
But these people obviously can't. Fair enough.
You're ignoring everything else I said to put a spin on this. Please don't.
-
Right, sorry, just being a pain. :p
-
No worries, just as long as we both know ;)
-
But, really, the issue I take with your point of view is that it is based on the assumption that a Government is trustworthy, infallable and capable, and I don't need to tell you what's wrong with that sentence.
Surely it's the duty of each and every government to ensure the protection of the people it represents. By allowing those that would call for my destruction to remain in this country, are they really doing that?
You make a valid point, but where is the line drawn between someone who actually intends to hurt the state, and someone who just talks about hurting the state? If the Government has the ability to deport people who express anti-state rhetoric, you can't honestly believe that it wouldn't be abused within a month, do you? It's a veeeery slippery slope, that one.
If there is someone who is running around the streets calling for my death and the death of my family and friends, I would have no qualms in that individual being investigated by the authorities, just in the same way they would check out any criminal who acts like he might commit a crime. But investigating and deporting are two very, very different things.
-
Which is why I mentioned Nuke. He has repeatedly called for the destruction of the entire world. By Kalfireth's logic he should be exiled to the moon then, right?
-
Unfortunately you have a point.... and that's where the whole thing falls apart.
On the one hand, I don't see why I (or we as a people) should be threatened by those of another race or religion publically saying we deserve death/destruction.
Of course, then you (or I) could ask.. "yes but what of those who are of the same race and religion as you are?". I can't answer that. I don't like it, but at least I feel they have the same general background as I do so perhaps have a better foundation for their hatred than "you're not from my race or religion, so die".
As for Nuke... well that's his special case. He's not out in the streets planning to bomb people, is he?
-
Those Muslims in those pictures represent the equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan, Neo Nazies or the Christian Identity terrorist cult for Christianity.
The problem with these guys is not that they shouldnt have a right to say what they like, its that these people really ARE dangerous.
-
Which is why I mentioned Nuke. He has repeatedly called for the destruction of the entire world. By Kalfireth's logic he should be exiled to the moon then, right?
IIRC, when Nuke has said this, he's always added some sort of " :D " or other hint that he's joking about it.
You'd probably be jumped by some overly-nationalistic dickhead, but you'd be protected by the police, not arrested.
An over-nationalistic dickhead in New York of all places? If you'd said Houston or Indianapolis, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but since it seems that just about everyone in New York would be more inclined to join the protestor rather than vehemontly beat him/her.
You make a valid point, but where is the line drawn between someone who actually intends to hurt the state, and someone who just talks about hurting the state? If the Government has the ability to deport people who express anti-state rhetoric, you can't honestly believe that it wouldn't be abused within a month, do you? It's a veeeery slippery slope, that one.
Sure, the power would be abused, and deportation shouldn't be used. However, when something does happen and someone needs to be held accountable, people shouldn't be screaming bloody murder or racism when the people who called for the murder of thousands are examined a bit closer than the average Englishman or American.
-
It's not for me to enforce, but that's the beauty of my freedom of speach - I can say what I think :)
But I'm not preaching the destruction of a people or country. I'm calling for the security of my own. I want to be able to live my life here, safe in the knowledge that I won't be blown up, shot, gassed or murdered by those that publically proclaim hatred of me (as a people) and my country.
Don't get me wrong on this. I don't like England or the country it's becoming. But I'm not calling for its destruction.
Surely it's the duty of each and every government to ensure the protection of the people it represents. By allowing those that would call for my destruction to remain in this country, are they really doing that?
Does that mean we should re-institute transportation?
-
Ey?
-
Ey?
Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.
-
The punishment should fit the crime.
Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Beat someone up in a drunken fight? Community service - the nastier the better. Unpaid work on a landfill site will only be so bearable before it suddenly doesn't seem such a good idea to beat people up anymore.
Joyriding? 10 year driving lisence ban followed by prison sentence if you get more than 30 years of ban.
These are just off the top of my head.. not really thought out but meant to illustrate that people are supposed to be punished for the crimes they commit and - hopefully - not commit them again. I think the number of people who suddenly realise they don't want to work on a landfill site for no pay will suddenly stop hitting eachother on a drunken night out. Similarly, the number of people who stand around with signs saying "I hate you, your country and your whole way of life - and you deserve the destruction that will follow from my people" may well decrease when they realise they get kicked straight out for being so hateful.
-
The punishment should fit the crime.
Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then? Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it? Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.
-
That I have to give you... if I were heard in the street saying "Blair is an idiot, he shouldn't have done this"... by my own rules that might get me a deportation. I don't know where you'd draw that line.
-
In the West, perhaps there's a big difference. Not in the Mid-East.
And you obviously haven't read the Koran/Bible/Torah.
You've completely contradicted yourself. The fact that there is a difference between a western and middle-eastern muslim pretty much proves my point that the problems are cultural not religious.
No, actually he hasn't. You see, religion in the Middle East is more or less the same thing as culture; hence, problems with one are problems with the other. You can't have it one way.
I have actually bothered with some study of Islam, and as religions go it is more problematic then most. Probably the greatest difficulty with it is that Islam draws no distincton between church and state. For the majority of its history the church has been the state. Mohammed was spiritual and temporal leader in a way that Jesus never was; Mohammed fought wars and ruled cities. Islam as a whole is not pyschologically ready to become a pure religion, it has always relied to an extent on a temporal power over its followers that such an institution would lack. It percieves pretty much all secular government as a threat because of this. Egypt has its share of terrorist problems, for example. So does Turkey. They control them by a police state that we could never countance.
Saying that Islamic terrorists are bush league compared to the IRA is...well, let's put it this way. The IRA was quite probably the most technically competent terrorists in the history of the world. But they were also, as perverse as it sounds, the most scruplous. They had an ethos of being Catholic, and they rarely if ever went in for the kind of high-profile and mass-destruction type of thing that Islamic terrorists practice as standard. The IRA knew that such behavior would be counterproductive to their goals. Islamic terrorists either don't believe that, don't care, or don't bother thinking about such things. The IRA was better at the job, but it was nowhere near as out-and-out nuts.
Put simply, the IRA would never have tried to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it outside a Royal residence or in downtown London. Islamic terrorists would love to.
-
Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.
Tell that to France.
-
Put simply, the IRA would never have tried to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it outside a Royal residence or in downtown London. Islamic terrorists would love to.
I don't doubt some of the more radical factions would have given their right leg up for such an opportunity. They were just kept in check by the moderates.
Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.
Tell that to France.
Care to expand on that? The French aren't exactly what you'd call big on multiculturalism.
-
Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.
Tell that to France.
Care to expand on that? The French aren't exactly what you'd call big on multiculturalism.
I think you just proved it to yourself. French neglect of Arab minorities most likely led to one of the mass riots that Sandwich is hinting to that lasted for weeks on end in Paris and Marseille.
The punishment should fit the crime.
Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then? Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it? Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.
I think there's a wee bit of a difference between "Bush/Blair sucks" and "get ready for the next holocaust" or "death to America/England" though. One condemns the actions of the government, the other calls for the deaths of some 360 million people. If somebody in a pub is saying the latter, they're probably way too drunk anyway.
-
The punishment should fit the crime.
Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then? Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it? Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.
I think there's a wee bit of a difference between "Bush/Blair sucks" and "get ready for the next holocaust" or "death to America/England" though. One condemns the actions of the government, the other calls for the deaths of some 360 million people. If somebody in a pub is saying the latter, they're probably way too drunk anyway.
Then why not deport racists while we're at it?
-
The punishment should fit the crime.
Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then? Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it? Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.
I think there's a wee bit of a difference between "Bush/Blair sucks" and "get ready for the next holocaust" or "death to America/England" though. One condemns the actions of the government, the other calls for the deaths of some 360 million people. If somebody in a pub is saying the latter, they're probably way too drunk anyway.
Then why not deport racists while we're at it?
You miss my point. Your original argument seemed to group politicians and average citizens who disagree with the government in with people who would do anything in their power to kill civilians. I simply pointed that out. I don't think we should deport anybody for what they say, but that there should be some (long-term) consequences. If you're out in the streets holding up a sign that says "Death to America" or "Kill the Jews", don't be surprised if you're looked at a little more intensely by the FBI when something does come up. You use racist/terrorist rhetoric, you're going to be grouped with the people who commit hate crimes and terrorist attacks.
-
I think you just proved it to yourself. French neglect of Arab minorities most likely led to one of the mass riots that Sandwich is hinting to that lasted for weeks on end in Paris and Marseille.
Yes, the French Muslim riots are exactly what I was referring to. My, how easily forgotten awkward things are.
-
And yet France survives.
Or what about the violence during the 2006 labour protests? Do we deport students too?
Or do we resist this ridiculously racist concept that only Muslims protest and get violent, and at least acknowledge that deporting our own citizens for civil unrest would result in losing a significant percentage of the population? (Note; there are already laws and punishments for incitement to violence)
In fact, while I'm on my high horse, labelling them the French Muslim riots is something I consider - frankly - rather despicable. Why not call them the French Black riots? Why not the French Migrant riots? Or is it only Muslims we wish to be seen as attacking rather than ethnicities? (in fact, why not actually consider the cause of the riots - nothing to do with religion atall - before ****ing spouting off about 'French Muslim riots')
-
If the only people taking part in the riots were Muslim then why shouldn't we call it what it is? I know in this day and age we'd rather not for fear of offending someone, but if that's who was involved then they'll have to cope with it.
And on the subject of deporting our own citizens for civil unrest, what kind of unrest did you have in mind? We're talking about those who are openly asking for (and threatening) the destruction of this country and its people and/or the western world. As I've said before, if they don't want the western world then why should the western world want them?
-
If the only people taking part in the riots were Muslim then why shouldn't we call it what it is? I know in this day and age we'd rather not for fear of offending someone, but if that's who was involved then they'll have to cope with it.
gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter? Why not call them black riots, or african riots?
And on the subject of deporting our own citizens for civil unrest, what kind of unrest did you have in mind? We're talking about those who are openly asking for (and threatening) the destruction of this country and its people and/or the western world. As I've said before, if they don't want the western world then why should the western world want them?
I can threaten the destruction of the country. I can call for a coup, or a change to a religious dictatorship. It might be reprehensible, but it is part of free speech that I am allowed to do so. You could them for incitement to violence, but if you deport people (remove citizenship) for this type of crime, it must be applied to all incitement (racial, religious, political, etc) then it is simply equating to censorship. Why not deport any of the British nationals involved in the various G8 riots? They're calling for the destruction of part of the western world in much the same way.
-
gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter? Why not call them black riots, or african riots?
Not really.. it only does if you choose to believe that. If I see that a group of American soldiers apparently mistreated a prisoner of war, I don't assume that all American soldiers do that. But to call them a group of white caucassian soldiers from the western world would be so incredibly vague as to not make it worth mentioning. A group of Muslims had a riot? It was a Muslim riot. That's not meant to be offensive, it's simply a fact to be stated.
I can threaten the destruction... (etc.)
As I said earlier, there you have a point. I don't know where the line should be drawn. But I do believe that the right to free speach can be abused. As a citizen of this country, I shouldn't have to tolerate others within this country publically calling for my destruction and the destruction of my country. If a German came to this country and did that during the WW2 period, he or she would be arrested - no questions asked. Right now we're apparently at war with terror. These people are openly encouraging terrorist acts, but we allow it because of free speach?
This doesn't seem right to me.
-
gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter? Why not call them black riots, or african riots?
Not really.. it only does if you choose to believe that. If I see that a group of American soldiers apparently mistreated a prisoner of war, I don't assume that all American soldiers do that. But to call them a group of white caucassian soldiers from the western world would be so incredibly vague as to not make it worth mentioning. A group of Muslims had a riot? It was a Muslim riot. That's not meant to be offensive, it's simply a fact to be stated.
My problem here, and probably Aldo's as well, is that those US soldiers were there as US soldiers. It was their job, it was the whole reason for them to be there. In the riots, those people weren't there for religious reasons, or race reasons, but economic reasons. So those weren't Muslim riots, but just plain old riots sparked by economic neglect and a godawfull police policy.
As a thought experiment, let's say that right now, here in Groningen, a large group of the student populace rises up against the city council, because, eh, I dunno, they haven't got enough houses. We wouldn't call that agnostic, atheist, or Christian riots, would we? Student riots would be closer to the point, even though the great majority of protesters will be white, and I think 75% would call him or herself a Christian of various kinds. Still, not the great white riots of Groningen, but the student riots. Why? Because the reason they are protesting is for student housing.
Now, take that exact same group, and let them start a protest about the Dutch troops going to Uruzgan. Then it wouldn't be the student riots, but the anti war protests. Even if it is the exact same group.
-
gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter? Why not call them black riots, or african riots?
Not really.. it only does if you choose to believe that. If I see that a group of American soldiers apparently mistreated a prisoner of war, I don't assume that all American soldiers do that. But to call them a group of white caucassian soldiers from the western world would be so incredibly vague as to not make it worth mentioning. A group of Muslims had a riot? It was a Muslim riot. That's not meant to be offensive, it's simply a fact to be stated.
A group of black African immigrants had a riot; why not use that term to describe it? It's more informative (the causes of the rioting were related to migrancy and racism, not religion). Can we now call English hooligans rioting 'christian riots' because most of them are (nominally) christian?
(actually, how do we even know they were all muslims, or majority muslims rioting? Where are the demographic statistics?)
I can threaten the destruction... (etc.)
As I said earlier, there you have a point. I don't know where the line should be drawn. But I do believe that the right to free speach can be abused. As a citizen of this country, I shouldn't have to tolerate others within this country publically calling for my destruction and the destruction of my country. If a German came to this country and did that during the WW2 period, he or she would be arrested - no questions asked. Right now we're apparently at war with terror. These people are openly encouraging terrorist acts, but we allow it because of free speach?
This doesn't seem right to me.
Then how do we draw the line as to what is and what is not deportable incitement? We already have a series of laws against incitement, let's not forget; the only reason arrests weren't made at that protest was because it could lead to a riot (more effective to just let them wear themselves out). We've already seen this government label Amnesty International and Liberty as helping terrorists by their standing up for civil liberties; how much of a stretch is it, really, for a/the government to label dissent against repressive so-called security measures as being "anti-British", once they have the formalised power to deport citizens for making a threat?
-
Or do we resist this ridiculously racist concept that only Muslims protest and get violent, and at least acknowledge that deporting our own citizens for civil unrest would result in losing a significant percentage of the population? (Note; there are already laws and punishments for incitement to violence)
I'll respond with a "joke" that's more of an observation than a "ha ha that's funny" thing:
A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim walk into a bar.
The bar explodes.
If the only people taking part in the riots were Muslim then why shouldn't we call it what it is? I know in this day and age we'd rather not for fear of offending someone, but if that's who was involved then they'll have to cope with it.
gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter? Why not call them black riots, or african riots?
Uhm, no, it doesn't. It simply states that the riots in France were composed of Muslims.
-
And were they?
EDIt; so you'd agree that the rioters religion had absolutely ****-all relevance to the cause and perpetuation of these riots, then?
-
Actually, I just read up on the (neutrality-disputed) Wikipedia article about the riots. I openly admit I did not know why the riots supposedly began (the 2 youth running from police and getting electrocuted in a power station).
With that in mind, I found it slightly amusing that the NTY seemed to go out of their way to emphasize that there were other participants in the riots who were not Muslim:
The head of the French intelligence agency (Renseignements généraux - RG) denied any Islamic factor in the riots, while the New York Times reported on November 5, 2005 that "while a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin" local residents say that "second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even some children of native French have taken part."
So, fine. The French Muslim + Tag-alongs Riots. ;)
-
so, the French riots, then. Why are you so eager to tag on 'Muslim'?
-
Because they're Muslim?
Because I'm not afraid to call a stick a stick?
Because I've seen a pattern you seem to have missed?
Pick one.
-
Because they're Muslim.
They're also immigrants. Also male. Also black. Also lower-class. Why not tag those labels on?
-
Because they're Muslim.
They're also immigrants. Also male. Also black. Also lower-class. Why not tag those labels on?
Doesn't have the same ring.
-
Precisely. :p
-
Could someone fill me in on what they were rioting about? It might go a long way towards explaining what the riots should have been called.
-
Could someone fill me in on what they were rioting about? It might go a long way towards explaining what the riots should have been called.
The spark was the death of 2 teenagers when chased by police, but the primary reasons can be put down to racism (for example from police, in job applications, etc), high unemployment, poor living conditions in slum tenements and lack of opportunities. Etc.
-
And those who were rioting were of Muslim persuasion? Or was it a lot more mixed than that?
-
And those who were rioting were of Muslim persuasion? Or was it a lot more mixed than that?
They were immigrants from the likes of Algeria. They didn't exactly do surveys of the rioters, after all....
Put it this way; you call them the Muslim Riots. What does that tell you about the actual cause? Nothing whatsoever. What I would suggest it does do, though, is imply the riots were down to Islam rather than the actual cause of them. Makes it rather easy to demonise the religion, I'd say.
Albeit from what I can tell, this whole French riot topic came about as a result of suggesting a desire to deport all these French-Arab immigrants.
-
Yahoo, of course, have their own sensible advice for travellers on what to do whilst waiting.
(http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/08/15/productplacement.jpg)
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/15/world_trade_center/)
-
When headlines and ads collide..... :lol:
-
Not as bad as the one I saw once about the Jill Dando murder* with an advert at the top for a job website titled "Make a contract killing!"
*For the non-brits Jill Dando was a TV presenter who at the time was believed to have been killed as the result of a murder for hire.
-
When headlines and ads collide..... :lol:
You like that?
It's tasteless but I'll never forget the time I saw a CNN newspage about an infant that died in a house fire. The advert on the page? For zip drives. It said... "Burn Baby Burn!"
-
You like that?
It's tasteless but I'll never forget the time I saw a CNN newspage about an infant that died in a house fire. The advert on the page? For zip drives. It said... "Burn Baby Burn!"
I saw that one too, but the "Burn, baby, burn!" ad was for a CD burner drive, not a ZIP drive.
-
Excellent article in the Register; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
-
The al-Qaeda franchise will pour forth its bowl of pestilence and death. We know this because we've watched it countless times on TV and in the movies, just as our officials have done. Based on their behavior, it's reasonable to suspect that everything John Reid and Michael Chertoff know about counterterrorism, they learned watching the likes of Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Vin Diesel, and The Rock (whose palpable homoerotic appeal it would be discourteous to emphasize).
It's a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire "red mercury," and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs.
For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury.
You won't hear about those fellows until it's too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven't got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots.
Meanwhile, the real thing draws ever closer. ®
So baically this was all for nothing. What a surprise.........
-
countries and their reactions to terrorism, especially the US, are pretty much useless. what i saw after 9/11 was the equivalent of a ****load of swelling after getting pricked. there was a massive overreaction, and its all done so much more harm, and everybody is less safe as a result. the 'after the fact' reactions, like the banning liquids thing, is also useless, as the people who wanted to do that were caught, and airline security (the few with brains) would be looking out for that anyways.
eh, im tired.