The terrorists are winning

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ethics Gradient said:
...... get a grip and get some perspective. People are buying into 'fear' propaganda and looseing site of reality on these issue ...

Ethics, interesting however, the point is we can change those 'liberties' which the terrorists are exploiting without having to give up our cars or the right to travel by underground; th eonly people whose liberties have to be restricted are terrorists and terrorist suspects.

It is their freedom of movement, access to this country or communications which need be compromised. How many of us have actually been restricted over the last 8 weeks in the war against terror in the UK, I doubt any of us have had contact with the security forces. Those terrorist syspects held and then released from Belmarsh, were strongly suspected or indeed convicted in their own countries of terrorist involvement. Would I be happy to restrict their right to enter this country, absolutely, there should be no automatic right to enter the UK, and they were free to leave.

The problem with human rights activists is that they have lost perspective, they have gorgotten that human rights are their to protect and if they fail to do that as they did on 7/7, then they need to be amended. I don't share the view that as only 50 or so died (not sure how you got 37?) it doesn't matter, all innocent human life matters and especially when we can do something about it, these weren't accidents on the roads or illnesses.
 
Rights, to varying degrees, have always been curtailed during times of war.

The flipside of increased security always involves loss of freedoms.
 
This is true, Lide, but we in the UK are not at war.
 
Isn’t it true if we give up just one liberty because of terrorises that they have won already.
 
seb said:
Ethics, interesting however, the point is we can change those 'liberties' which the terrorists are exploiting without having to give up our cars or the right to travel by underground; th eonly people whose liberties have to be restricted are terrorists and terrorist suspects.

No - it affects the liberties of EVERYONE in this country ... its just that for the majority of people they won't notice - the problem lies in the fact that we forget to look at the long term picture. While it may appear to be a nice fluffy government in power at the moment ( lets forget about internationally illegal wars and the lies to attempt to justify, lets forget about innocent men being shot in the head multiple times etc etc etc )
What happens if in the future those 'special powers' to avoid citizens liberties happen to conflict with your, or your childrens interests ?
Have you considered the fact that:

a) governments change
b) society changes
c) communication changes

- consider the way we worked, lived and played 20 years ago ... no internet ( for the public anyway ), mobile phones, voice over IP, networked consoles and PC's playing massive games all over the world.
Ebay, internet porn, video streaming, pod casts etc etc.

- now consider the possible changes over the next 20 to 30 years ...
.... and consider the implications of the 'if you do nothing wrong' attitude. How many people are copying films from friends, burning DVD's, music etc.
Thats against the law .... so those that say 'if you do nothing wrong' had better be truely 'innocent' if they want to cling to that statement to protect them.

seb said:
It is their freedom of movement, access to this country or communications which need be compromised. How many of us have actually been restricted over the last 8 weeks in the war against terror in the UK, I doubt any of us have had contact with the security forces. Those terrorist syspects held and then released from Belmarsh, were strongly suspected or indeed convicted in their own countries of terrorist involvement. Would I be happy to restrict their right to enter this country, absolutely, there should be no automatic right to enter the UK, and they were free to leave.

You fail to get the bigger picture - these law changes can affect ANYONE.
They will be on the books not just for now ... but for the future.

seb said:
The problem with human rights activists is that they have lost perspective, they have gorgotten that human rights are their to protect and if they fail to do that as they did on 7/7, then they need to be amended. I don't share the view that as only 50 or so died (not sure how you got 37?) it doesn't matter, all innocent human life matters and especially when we can do something about it, these weren't accidents on the roads or illnesses.

50 or 37, its still less than even the number of people that died in DIY accidents.
I am not a human rights activist .... neither am I at war with anyone.
Some relegious nutcases have differening opinions to me and similar minded people, and on rare occastions they manage to commit acts of murder justified by their twisted logic. These murders are few and far between.

I try to put this into perspective on how I judge it as a risk to my life ... and consider that there are 80 to 90 fatal shootings each year, and about 10,000 incidents envolving guns.
There is far more chance that I will have a fatal car accident on my way to and from work than some fruit loop blowing me up.
Its just that it 'sounds' much more 'terrifiying', espcially with all the gory pictures on the telly of the 'carnage' of a bomb blast.

It is extremenly niave to consider that the government gives a damn about the individual - or that they will never abuse powers if its convienent to do so - especially indefinately. I have a very 'clear perspective' on the situation. In the relative scale of things these nutters are a drop in the ocean, and while they should be dealt with, they should be dealt with in proportion to thier actual significance to the lives of EVERY citizen of this country and in proportion to the rights of EVERY citizen - rather than overblown, reactionary and completely out of proportion responses that affect us and our children for years to come. I have lived through many bombings, and I don't rememebr the far more direct and real trheat posed by the IRA affecting the general public anywhere near the same way.
There were bombs going off in Manchester, London etc .... an we didn't have this kind of 'hysterical' reaction.
 
maybe, but we still had, and still do have, entirely innocent people locked away for crimes they didn't commit. The 'big change' you are getting so hysterical about isn't actually going to matter to the vast majority of people living here, and never will.

Even as things stand now, in our free and liberal society, you can be locked away for crimes you didn't commit, you can be shot in the head for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can be sent to fight in an illegal war...

From my perspective, jeopardizing your own, or your families safety, for the sake of hanging onto some theoretical right to freedoms which most of us never excercise anyway, is just plain stupid.

You'd also have argue against car seatbelt legislation on that basis..?
 
Nick_UK said:
This is true, Lide, but we in the UK are not at war.

No according to those that wish to, and are, engaging in acts of war against your country.
 
Garrett said:
Isn’t it true if we give up just one liberty because of terrorises that they have won already.

That's a rather romantic way to look at it but practically speaking it isn't valid considering the past.

We temporarily gave up quite a few liberties during WWII.
 
Lide said:
No according to those that wish to, and are, engaging in acts of war against your country.

You've been brainwashed by your government, Lide. The UK is not at war. We've always had terrorists, but that is a different issue entirely. You may have fallen for all that "war on terrorism" clap-trap from your government, but we haven't, so please stop all the jingoistic nonsense !
 
Lide said:
......... We temporarily gave up quite a few liberties during WWII.

I don't recall them hacking up the Bill of Rights during WW2 ? A dozen illegal immigrants are allowed to hi-jack three airplanes, and you surrender half of the rights which the original settlers of America fought long and hard for. Congratulations - you've been duped.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." -George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000


"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush, July 27, 2001

Not there yet, but he's working on it :rolleyes:
 
Nick_UK said:
You've been brainwashed by your government, Lide. The UK is not at war. We've always had terrorists, but that is a different issue entirely. You may have fallen for all that "war on terrorism" clap-trap from your government, but we haven't, so please stop all the jingoistic nonsense !


there are plenty in the UK who would disagree with you, including our Government and opposition both of whom have sanctioned action in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the UK against insurrgents, terrorists, fundamentalists whatever you want to call them, but who are dedicated to bringing down our way of life. It doesn't take big print but if that helps then to all intent and purposes WE ARE AT WAR.
 
Nick_UK said:
You've been brainwashed by your government, Lide.

What makes you think I am susceptible to being "brainwashed" by any government?

Nick_UK said:
The UK is not at war. We've always had terrorists, but that is a different issue entirely.

You've "always had" terrorists flying planes into buildings? You've "always had" terrorists willing to use weapons of mass destruction against your country? You've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses with the goal of ultimately converting your society to one of extreme Islam, or its destruction in the process?

Nick_UK said:
You may have fallen for all that "war on terrorism" clap-trap from your government, but we haven't, so please stop all the jingoistic nonsense !

Maybe you haven't woken up to the threat of such terrorism but many have, including within your own country. As the attacks get worse more will follow.

And because my views differ to yours, and just so happens to be in accordance with my government, how do figure that amounts to jingoism?

Actually, my views, on the matter, are not even entirely in accordance with my government because I don't think they take the terrorism threat seriously enough and are certainly not doing everything they can to make the country safe.
 
seb said:
there are plenty in the UK who would disagree with you, including our Government and opposition both of whom have sanctioned action in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the UK against insurrgents, terrorists, fundamentalists whatever you want to call them, but who are dedicated to bringing down our way of life. It doesn't take big print but if that helps then to all intent and purposes WE ARE AT WAR.


What rot ! Our government doesn't say anything of the sort ! Where are you getting this rubbish ?

The UK government won't even concede that the Iraq invasion has had any effect on terrorism. According to Blair, they would be bombing us anyway, Iraq invasion, or no Iraq invasion.

Now, if I were to join some loony religious sect, and get myself brainwashed into going over to plant a bomb in the White House, and if I were to succeed, would that make a state of war exist between the UK and the US ?

Of course not, and the fact that a few loonies have planted explosives over here doesn't make us at war with anyone else either. If you fall for that, you really do need to have a ring put through your nose, so that you can be even more easily led !
 
The Dude said:
Even as things stand now, in our free and liberal society, you can be locked away for crimes you didn't commit, you can be shot in the head for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can be sent to fight in an illegal war...

You can't get locked up for a crime you didn't commit without going to court and getting a trial - and we have things called 'appeals'.
Being shot in the head is 'against the law' and I should be protected against it ... especially if its the police doing it .... which is current governments fault due to the state of affairs they have led us up to and the way they have missmanged it.
I can't be sent to fight in an illegal war - I am not in the armed forces ... something I would have had a choice of signing up to just like everyone else.
And even then, I can choose to be a concensius objector and take a stint locked up, I would not be 'shot' for not going.

Currently I can't be locked up without trial for more than a short period of time and I am not forced to carry identity papers that can be demanded by the police unless I choose to have them by driving a car.

The Dude said:
From my perspective, jeopardizing your own, or your families safety, for the sake of hanging onto some theoretical right to freedoms which most of us never excercise anyway, is just plain stupid.

We'll have you tagged and under 24hr video survailance tomorrow if you wish - just incase you have a mental break down and harm yourself or your family ... get drunk and do something stupid like drive a car or operate machinery.
Since most child abuse is commited in the family, we'll have to watch you 24 - 7 or better still remove you from the family home and only allow secure visits once per month.

I'll be removeing your video and computer just incase so you can't download illegal software, copy films or potentially get illegal pornography.... for that matter we will be switching off the internet permanently at midnight tonight for the massive terrorist, paedophile, drug running, arms sales risks it poses.

Sharp objects, garden tools, sports equipment etc will all be banned - not many of us play baseball, so baseball bats are now illegal.



At what point does giving freedoms up wheither you use them or not become stupid when the gains are negligible.
Do you have a nice little grpah for us with an X on it.
I'm in favour of banning kids off the streets incase they commit acts of vandalism or run into the road.

but all thats just daft talk really, because yes you are right, I understand what you are saying.... its not going to affect most of us at all really.

..... just those silly muslims and funny looking 'asian types' and maybe the odd 'person of african origin' for PC's sake.

I'm okay so sod anyone one else who's 'different', liberties and rights don't apply to 'those people' like they do to us
 
Lide said:
What makes you think I am susceptible to being "brainwashed" by any government?

The fact that you repeat your president's propaganda word for word ?

Lide said:
You've "always had" terrorists flying planes into buildings? You've "always had" terrorists willing to use weapons of mass destruction against your country? You've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses with the goal of ultimately converting your society to one of extreme Islam, or its destruction in the process?

Well, excuse me, Lide, but how many terrorist attacks has your country had in the last 40 years ? Three ? (If you include the Penatagon as a separate attack). We were experiencing terrorism since before America was America - ever heard of someone called Guy Fawkes - a terrorist who planted a bomb under the Houses of Parliament in 1605 ! In the last 40 years we've had hundreds of IRA bombs in London and other capital cities (largely funded with American money, I might add). Didn't see much "war on terror" when the IRA were bombing the **** out of us !

Lide said:
Maybe you haven't woken up to the threat of such terrorism but many have, including within your own country. As the attacks get worse more will follow.

Get worse ? How many more have you had since 9/11 ?

Lide said:
And because my views differ to yours, and just so happens to be in accordance with my government, how do figure that amounts to jingoism?

Actually, my views, on the matter, are not even entirely in accordance with my government because I don't think they take the terrorism threat seriously enough and are certainly not doing everything they can to make the country safe.

In accordance with your government ? The words "hook, line, and sinker" come to mind. Now, I know you won't have looked at anything to do with Michael Moore, but there's one thing he said that you can't dispute..... ruling by the terrorism threat is a "win-win" situation for all politicians. If the terrorism goes down, they can claim that they are doing a wonderful job, and the "security measures" (or losses of freedom) are working well, but if there is another terrorist attack, they can claim that the country needs more of the same. Can't lose ! And you fell for it.
 
Lide said:
You've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses?


Maybe you haven't woken up to the threat of such terrorism but many have, including within your own country. As the attacks get worse more will follow.

Erm haven't you heard of a place called Northern Ireland? As Nick mentions, the IRA have waged a terror campaign against the UK for years and have killed a larger number of important figures than Islamic extremists have.

So yes, in the UK most of us have been close to terror in one form or another long before 9/11.
 
First, glad to see Ethics back! :D Second, while I can see the need for some curtailment of people activites that are dangerous to society, and a large number of people (ie the far right in Germany), for the 'greater good' as it were, I have to agree with Ethic and Nick-Uk. We are NOT at war with anyone at the moment, any more than we were the IRA et al, and thus the current proposals smack of 'knee jerk'.

At the same time, as Ethics points out, who, are these new laws, that are favoured by that somewhat dubious organisation MI5, going to be used against? Just terrorists? Or anyone with a 'pigmentation' or 'religious' problem? I don't subscribe to the view that Blair and his gang are after some sinister 'total control' over us (why bother?) but this govt does spend 90% of it's time running scared from a press and media that demands tougher and tougher action (racialy motived action I have to say) in the 'war on terror', and spends far too much time trying to appease them.

Although I would agree, this craven submission to the power of the press has the same result............. erosion of liberties we can ill afford to lose.
 
Nick_UK said:
The fact that you repeat your president's propaganda word for word ?

Yeah, that must be it. :rolleyes:

Nick_UK said:
Well, excuse me, Lide, but how many terrorist attacks has your country had in the last 40 years ? Three ? (If you include the Penatagon as a separate attack). We were experiencing terrorism since before America was America - ever heard of someone called Guy Fawkes - a terrorist who planted a bomb under the Houses of Parliament in 1605 ! In the last 40 years we've had hundreds of IRA bombs in London and other capital cities (largely funded with American money, I might add). Didn't see much "war on terror" when the IRA were bombing the **** out of us !


If you want to talk about domestic terrorism in America then you need to learn quite a bit more about it's history.

My previous remarks on the matter still apply.

Nick_UK said:
Get worse ? How many more have you had since 9/11 ?

So from the delay you conclude nothing more is coming even when terror organizations themselves are saying they plan to attack, and continue to attack throughout the world?

Do you know something they don't?

Nick_UK said:
In accordance with your government ? The words "hook, line, and sinker" come to mind. Now, I know you won't have looked at anything to do with Michael Moore, but there's one thing he said that you can't dispute..... ruling by the terrorism threat is a "win-win" situation for all politicians. If the terrorism goes down, they can claim that they are doing a wonderful job, and the "security measures" (or losses of freedom) are working well, but if there is another terrorist attack, they can claim that the country needs more of the same. Can't lose ! And you fell for it.

Ah, so Bush and his cronies are all about eroding our 'freedoms?"

To what end?

You also didn't address my jingoism question.
 
deanym said:
Erm haven't you heard of a place called Northern Ireland? As Nick mentions, the IRA have waged a terror campaign against the UK for years and have killed a larger number of important figures than Islamic extremists have.

So yes, in the UK most of us have been close to terror in one form or another long before 9/11.


I'll repost my previous remarks:

You've "always had" terrorists flying planes into buildings? You've "always had" terrorists willing to use weapons of mass destruction against your country? You've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses with the goal of ultimately converting your society to one of extreme Islam, or its destruction in the process?

Also, try quoting and responding to all of it instead of just the part of the sentence where I said "you've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses?"
 
Lide, you ignore every question that I ask, and then criticise me for ignoring one of yours, even though I have already answered it.

You asked "To what end ?" - I'll tell you (again).......

.... because Bush wants a country where he is a dictator. Democracy clearly isn't working for him. He's admitted it himself..........

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000


"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush, July 27, 2001

Now, how about answering mine ?

How many terrorist attacks has your country had in the last 40 years ?

How many more (terrorist attacks) have you had since 9/11 ?
 
Lide said:
I'll repost my previous remarks:

You've "always had" terrorists flying planes into buildings? You've "always had" terrorists willing to use weapons of mass destruction against your country? You've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses with the goal of ultimately converting your society to one of extreme Islam, or its destruction in the process?

Also, try quoting and responding to all of it instead of just the part of the sentence where I said "you've always had terrorists blowing up your trains and buses?"

How many terrorist attacks has America had in the last 40 years ?

THREE

For the first time in history, you don't feel safe in your own country..... get over it !

We've been doing it for centuries. What a load of wimps.
 
Nick_UK said:
What rot ! Our government doesn't say anything of the sort ! Where are you getting this rubbish ?

The UK government won't even concede that the Iraq invasion has had any effect on terrorism. According to Blair, they would be bombing us anyway, Iraq invasion, or no Iraq invasion.

Now, if I were to join some loony religious sect, and get myself brainwashed into going over to plant a bomb in the White House, and if I were to succeed, would that make a state of war exist between the UK and the US ?

Of course not, and the fact that a few loonies have planted explosives over here doesn't make us at war with anyone else either. If you fall for that, you really do need to have a ring put through your nose, so that you can be even more easily led !

hey keep it polite mate and I will be happy to keep replying to you ;)

I listed examples of the war we are waging, Afghanistan - which took out taliban and Alqueda directly. Iraq - which took out Saddam and is now taking out fundamentalist insurgents
, and fundamentalist terrorism in our country.

I didn't say that Iraq was linked cause and effect with UK 7/7 bombers....the war on terror is going on irrespective of the invasion of Iraq, my very point they are at war with us irrespective of the actions we take. They bombed 9/11 before Afghanistan.

If you are hung up on the legal aspects of going to war, then you are right, we will not actually declare a state of war with Al Queda, I didn't say that either, however, we are still at war with terror different thing. We are not fighting a country but an ideology, try and grasp that single simple concept.
 
Nick_UK said:
Lide, you ignore every question that I ask, and then criticise me for ignoring one of yours, even though I have already answered it.


You mean like the one where you say "the fact that you repeat your president's propaganda word for word?"

You actually expect someone to respond to such a statement?

What else did I "ignore?"

Nick_UK said:
You asked "To what end ?" - I'll tell you (again).......

.... because Bush wants a country where he is a dictator. Democracy clearly isn't working for him. He's admitted it himself..........

I must have missed the part where you said he "wants a country where he is a dictator." :rolleyes:

Once again, to what end? His presidency is up in a few years. Then what?

Nick_UK said:
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000


"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush, July 27, 2001

Now, how about answering mine ?

How many terrorist attacks has your country had in the last 40 years ?

How many more (terrorist attacks) have you had since 9/11 ?

Never heard those remarks before but if he were joking I doubt you would believe it.

I'm sorry you feel that you can wear the IRA attacks as some kind of badge of honor and wisdom. The IRA is nothing compared to the actions and threat of Islamic extremists and terrorists.
 
We went to war on American lies. There was never any weapons of mass destruction. You don't spend the billions on intelligence, and not know that. The invasion was all about Bush getting his hands on Iraqi oil. Afghanistan was simply clearing the way to do that. Now, I know you will dispute that, but please note that the very first thing that Bush did when his troops had seized the oil wells was to put through legal measures which put Iraqi oil under the control of the American government. Meanwhile, the man who it was supposed to be all about still languishes in a cell, two years on, still waiting for a trial. Not to mention all those still waiting in Guantanamo Bay.
 
Lide said:
I'm sorry you feel that you can wear the IRA attacks as some kind of badge of honor and wisdom. The IRA is nothing compared to the actions and threat of Islamic extremists and terrorists.

Lide, you deserve a medal. Every post I think that you cannot make yourself look any more stupid, and every time you surpass yourself.

Your country was attacked three times by terrorists in its entire history. You think the IRA is/was nothing, because you were not on the receiving end.

You haven't had any terrorist activity at all since 9/11, whereas we have had devastating bombs on 3 London underground trains and one on a bus, but merely the threat of further activity in America has you all quaking in your boots. What heroes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom