terrorism

[Faith No More]

In what way does a quote proves your point of view is right? According to that line of thoughts - We should legalize murder since making it illegal to kill people violates our personal liberty (I can't chose to kill people - What a let down!) and enhances security. Forbidding highly damaging or harmful freedom of expression is a common procedure in Europe - You can't incentive murder, you cant' wave a nazi flag and tell publicly all jews should be exterminated, you can't praise the Al-Qaeda's accomplishments. The problem is NOT that it is offensive, everything we say may be offensive to some people - The problem is when it is harmful to society - Considering there are a lot of ignorant uneducated people out there, we live better by stopping propaganda of certain ideas. I certainly wouldn't like to see a manifestation of people protesting against atheists and saying they should be beheaded, and I'm glad that's illegal.

I understand that for some people it may be right to never give up on freedom of expression and speech, but no right should be absolute, using rights to cause harm to others or to society as a whole shouldn't be allowed.

The phrase of giving up liberty in detriment of security being a bad choice is inherently wrong from the start since there are a lot of structures and aspects in all societies where there is a balance between both values and not a prevalence of individual freedoms - The example of being illegal to murder is an example of security being over freedom. Any other crime is a good example. France forbidding burkas and religious symbols in classrooms is another example.

I am not saying my opinion is flawless and 100% correct, but I just felt like giving a different point of view, considering what I'm saying is basically common sense in many states over Europe, I reckon it may not be in the US and Canada, but a different perspective doesn't harm does it?

The quote proves nothing, but it was a simplified way to make my point. In the U.S., where you have a bumbling, incompetent government that is drowning in bureaucracy, the less control it has the better. Sure, no right is absolute, including free speech, but there are other ways to combat extremism besides allowing the government the power to regulate speech. It's easy to simply ban unpopular speech, but education that creates a public awareness that counters that speech would get the same results without putting limits on our own freedom.

My point is that we shouldn't get over-zealous with governmental regulation, especially without a deep understanding of the consequences afoot. People fear these outside threats like ISIS, but if the American reaction to 9/11 taught us anything, it is that our fear should be focused on the environment we are willing to create in the name of protection against these outside threats. Humanity has a history of making problems worse by reacting to situations without foresight, and I just want people to start looking before they leap.

Giving the government more power to regulate expression is not something that should be done without extreme cause, and so far, no one has justified doing so.

[xpastor]

Sure, no right is absolute, including free speech, but there are other ways to combat extremism besides allowing the government the power to regulate speech. It's easy to simply ban unpopular speech, but education that creates a public awareness that counters that speech would get the same results without putting limits on our own freedom.

I have not advocated giving the government the power to regulate speech. I have stated that inciting others to violent behavior is already a crime.

BTW, wouldn't some people call it brainwashing if the government sponsored education programs to direct our opinions in channels it approved? That sounds like more of a threat to freedom than arresting people for inciting violence and then giving them the full protection of due process.

[Faith No More]

I have not advocated giving the government the power to regulate speech. I have stated that inciting others to violent behavior is already a crime.

BTW, wouldn't some people call it brainwashing if the government sponsored education programs to direct our opinions in channels it approved? That sounds like more of a threat to freedom than arresting people for inciting violence and then giving them the full protection of due process.

Clearly, you have much more faith in your due process than I do in mine. All our government has to do is label you a terrorist and they can incarcerate you without having to show due cause. There is no protection.

And who's talking about government sponsored education? I'm talking about people creating a culture that is educated by individuals spreading information via the internet.

[abaris]

That's the Global Government Requests Report by Facebook. Facebook alone, mind you and it's already pretty scary.

"Since our first report, we’ve seen an increase in government requests for data and for content restrictions. In the first six months of 2014, governments around the world made 34,946 requests for data — an increase of about 24% since the last half of 2013. During the same time, the amount of content restricted because of local laws increased about 19%."
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/11/glob...-report-3/

All in the name of our security, I'm sure.

[Minimalist]

I have stated that inciting others to violent behavior is already a crime.

Can you cite that law in Canada, X-P. We have already shown you that such is not the case here.

[Violet]

Gee, if only the democracies had known back in 1939 that we just had to laugh at the Nazis, we could have saved ourselves six years of "blood, sweat, toil and tears"—four years for you Yanks who were late coming to the party.

'Nazism' is not terrorism, it is fascism. We yanks didn't have much to gain from the early part of the 'second' world war.

I'm sure the terrorists enjoy it if we act terrified, but they have goals far beyond that, and they are not going to hide in caves just because we laugh at them. And you surely did not mean that I should just laugh off the murder of two Canadian soldiers,

Not a question of enjoyment, it's a political policy of psychological disruption, whereby instilling fear and violence in and from a people will better allow for one's agenda to be met. Of course they have goals... recruitment, revenge, really red radishes and red rocks, religion... but motive for the terrorism is that they will *gain* by inflicting *terror* upon a people. This can be their people, your people, someone else's people, or even the population of penguins in Pennsylvania.

You mean you actually care about the death of two soldiers? Curious, as it's a soldier's duty to die in service to their country.

The goal of ISIS seems to be to set up a caliphate in the middle east and then to bring the whole world under its sway converting everyone to Islam. They think Allah will inevitably grant them victory. It's delusional of course, but so was Hitler delusional, and it took an immense effort to stop him.

Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that... but it's not a bad goal. Allah has already granted them victory: your fear breeds for their peoples more fear, bringing more peoples underneath their banner. Recruitment, revenge, religion.

Our approach to fighting terrorism is awful Do it quietly if you have to... unless your can use that terrorism for your own benefit *cough* W *cough*

[xpastor]

'Nazism' is not terrorism, it is fascism. We yanks didn't have much to gain from the early part of the 'second' world war.

I figured you wouldn't get the point. There are in fact important similarities between the Nazis and ISIS. For one thing, they gained power by having organized groups of armed thugs intimidate the populace. Another is that the Germans had minorities in other countries which gave them a pretext for attacking those nations; there are now Muslim minorities throughout most of the western world. They both share the delusion that destiny or Allah will grant them world domination, so they will go on expanding as long as we go on backing down from their threats. An important difference: Germany was a technologically advanced nation, so most of their armaments were produced either in Germany or in conquered territories, ISIS relies on buying its weaponry from external sources, which would require a different approach to choking off their ability to fight.

The crack about America coming late to the war was just a throwaway line directed at the obnoxious Hollywood presentation which makes it seem as if no one was doing anything until the Americans rushed in to save them from the Nazis. I have the utmost respect for the contribution that American forces made to the allied cause in both the European and Pacific theaters. However, it is true that the US government stayed neutral for over two years while 21 nations were overrun. During that time Britain, Canada and Australia were virtually the only nations opposing the Nazis.

You mean you actually care about the death of two soldiers? Curious, as it's a soldier's duty to die in service to their country.

So you mean you didn't give a shit about the 3000 people killed in 911??? These soldiers did not die on the battlefield. One was run down by a car in a parking lot in the town where his base was located. The other was shot in the back while he served as a ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial.

Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that... but it's not a bad goal. Allah has already granted them victory: your fear breeds for their peoples more fear, bringing more peoples underneath their banner. Recruitment, revenge, religion.

Our approach to fighting terrorism is awful Do it quietly if you have to... unless your can use that terrorism for your own benefit *cough* W *cough*

What fear??? My position is that we should kill the fuckers until there is an unconditional surrender. Same as we did with the Nazis and the Japanese.

---

I suppose the following is another example of advocacy protected by free speech.

Active participating member’ of Pakistani terror group recorded in Canada saying he was on ‘military mission’

An “active participating member” of a Pakistani terrorist organization was recorded at a Toronto mosque saying he hated Canada and had been sent here on a “military mission,” an immigration official alleged at a hearing Friday. ...

His online writings suggest an “extremist mindset,” the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] said. “We are the Muslims and we are coming for you,” he wrote in a 2004 online post. He had also posted a photo of Toronto’s Scotia tower with the comment, “If I only had a plane.” ...

Mr. Ansari ... came to the attention of counter-terrorism police in 2012, when he was charged with 21 firearms offences over a stockpile of weapons he kept in Peterborough, Ont. ...

In January 2013, Mr. Ansari was arrested once again, this time for trying to destroy newspapers for Ahmadiyyah Muslims, a minority branded heretics by Sunnis and often subjected to violence at the hands of extremists. The edition of the paper he had taken from a Toronto-area shop featured articles critical of Sunni extremists and the ASWJ.

[Violet]

I figured you wouldn't get the point. There are in fact important similarities between the Nazis and ISIS. For one thing, they gained power by having organized groups of armed thugs intimidate the populace. Another is that the Germans had minorities in other countries which gave them a pretext for attacking those nations; there are now Muslim minorities throughout most of the western world. They both share the delusion that destiny or Allah will grant them world domination, so they will go on expanding as long as we go on backing down from their threats. An important difference: Germany was a technologically advanced nation, so most of their armaments were produced either in Germany or in conquered territories, ISIS relies on buying its weaponry from external sources, which would require a different approach to choking off their ability to fight.

You'll find more analogues between governments and terror cells than you'd like... if you look for them. The things you bring up, however? Pointless. Terrorism is in approach; all persons and all nations are capable of it.

Psychological warfare... panic... these things are not foremost upon nazi goals: domination is. Should there be terrorism in Nazism, it is only as a means to their end, and their means differ nein from 'Ally' participation in the war.

ISIS can expand however it will... but fearing it is the first and most critical mistake. They want you to fear their god. They *NEED* you to fear their god. Terror is their recruitment. Terror is their weapon. Terror is their endgame. War is but a facet of their terrifying visage... and war they shall, as it is war you give them.

But... they are not unrighteous in their retaliation. We have brought them to fear us... and they now repay the favor. They'll need to pay back an awful lot more to balance out the wrongs of the West.

The crack about America coming late to the war was just a throwaway line directed at the obnoxious Hollywood presentation which makes it seem as if no one was doing anything until the Americans rushed in to save them from the Nazis. I have the utmost respect for the contribution that American forces made to the allied cause in both the European and Pacific theaters. However, it is true that the US government stayed neutral for over two years while 21 nations were overrun. During that time Britain, Canada and Australia were virtually the only nations opposing the Nazis.

Hollywood is american, and its primary demographic? American. It's rare to see a film from Hollywood that goes against it's primary demographic. False? Correct... but it is damn good presentation. Mind: terror is entirely about presentation. Media feeds the hungry fear culture; Hollywood feeds our fat ego.

So you mean you didn't give a shit about the 3000 people killed in 911??? These soldiers did not die on the battlefield. One was run down by a car in a parking lot in the town where his base was located. The other was shot in the back while he served as a ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial.

Correct, I do not care about the 3000 people killed in 9/11. Even if I am saddened by the attack: the number hardly registers. There are far more deadly things in america than terrorism... drunk driving, for instance. If I get sad about every person who dies, well... It'd be impossible to function for the depression I would be in. People live... people die. People will be murdered, people will starve to death, and people will wronged in as many ways as one can imagine.

The structural and infrastructure damage is unfortunate, as is the loss of 3000 people...

But more than 110,937 reported deaths from violence in Iraq by december 2012 (and at least 66,000 civilian deaths)... matters one hell of a lot more to me than fewer than a 30th of that number. We went to (two) war(s) over the former... by rights of this alone (and not counting the many many other wars we have inflicted upon them): we should expect them to repay us thirtyfold.

What fear??? My position is that we should kill the fuckers until there is an unconditional surrender. Same as we did with the Nazis and the Japanese.

Right. There are one and a half billion muslims... so, good luck. Start targeting muslims willy-nilly... and you'll have half of your world dead in a *very* righteous holy war. Minimum.

Raze the middle east... receive what comes to you when you inflict terrorism.

I suppose the following is another example of advocacy protected by free speech.

<snip>

Vandalism is not protected speech. Advocacy in absence of criminal activity is always protected by the freedom of speech, perhaps unless it is 'slander', but that's awful shaky.

[Chas]

You mean you actually care about the death of two soldiers? Curious, as it's a soldier's duty to die in service to their country.

Stupid statement is stupid.

These soldiers were murdered.

And it is a soldier's duty to risk his life in service to his country.

[Violet]

Stupid statement is stupid.

These soldiers were murdered.

And it is a soldier's duty to risk his life in service to his country.

Simple statement is simple.

All dead soldiers are murdered, or die in accidents, or die to old age. In all regards: they die... and duty demands they die for their country. They are bound to this duty until the state, or the self, decrees that they are no longer soldiers.

Soldiers are not duty-bound to 'risk' anything... only to obey. It is their moral responsibility (a different type of duty), to die in the stead of those they would protect. A dead soldier has fulfilled this duty. A soldier that is not yet dead, has yet to fulfill this duty. But die they will... for die they must. They will die in service... or they will not be soldiers when they die.