Page: ...
MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
The NYPD has now begun random bag searches on subway riders.

Yup, folks, in the U.S. you can be randomly stopped and searched.

I sure hope this gets knocked down, because I'd rather die in an explosion than have the fourth amendment trampled.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


UCOFSILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales


Posted:
*puts on a chicken suit for some light relief for the benefit of this thread*

I cant debate at this level. it is too intense and theres too many words and too many ideas to follow. I want to add what I think is relevant, but I dont know a) if it is relevant b) if it has already been stated before c) how useful it is. I cant debate in chat cos its full of shite. I cant debate in discussion for the reason given above. frown

More tea, vicar?

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
You could add whatever you want and we'll let you know if it's already been said wink

Tea? Only with a slice of lemon in it... biggrin

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


_Clare_BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)


Posted:
Tis ok Jon, don't be put off, your opinions are as valid as anyone elses. hug

This is obviously an issue people feel strongly about - and it's grand if we don't share the same view (life would be boring if we did smile )

Thanks for everyone's input and the valiant efforts to achieve clarity. I enjoyed it biggrin

Getting to the other side smile


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: BBC



Tony Blair has proposed a raft of anti-terror measures. Here are the main points of the plans:

New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record.

Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules.

Home secretary automatically to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist bookshops, centres, organisations and websites.

Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence.

Consult on setting a maximum time limit for extraditions to other countries - Mr Blair said it was unacceptable that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombing 10 years ago, was still in the UK.

Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges.

Use more control orders against British terror suspects, who cannot be deported.

Increase the number of special judges hearing terror cases.

Review the threshold for gaining British citizenship and establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise how to better integrate parts of the community "presently inadequately integrated".

Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK and consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to forment extremism.

Use biometric visas for those from designated countries and compiling a database so people whose views or activities pose a threat to UK security can be kept out of the country. They could only appeal against the decision from overseas.




If I was a Muslim, I think I'd be pretty pissed off. So, who said that England was not going to introduce laws that infringed Human Rights?

Voltaire: "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Not anymore. frown

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


flidBRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: Sethis

If I was a Muslim, I think I'd be pretty pissed off.




Why?

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
^^

Lets see.

1. The odds are probably 50-50 that you are going to be stopped and searched.
2. You are banned from visiting some mosques. If you went to them, or know anyone who does, then you're probably under surveillence. You can also be arrested for belonging to a religious group, some of which are moderate and *do not* condone violence.
3. You can be deported for saying "Maybe the bombers have got a legitimate complaint here".
4. You can be held for a proposed 3 months without trial or charge.
5. You will have a "special" visa/passport so that the government can track your movements.

Add to this the trampling of the "Right to Free speech".

Add to this the discrimmination and victimisation that you will be subject to.

Add to this the alienation that comes with suspicion.

And you ask me why they might be upset?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
One the other hand, a lot of Muslims are quite keen on separating themselves from extremists. They want to say that in fact the terrorist extremists aren't actually Muslims at all because true Muslims would not kill innocent civilians.

So those kind of Muslims would perhaps be inclined to support some of the proposed measures.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
True, however upon leaving a mosque in London, BBC news was unable to find *anyone* who supported the new measures.

Remember what I said a few posts ago? "I'm just waiting for them to introduce laws like that [the PATRIOT act] here"

Sometimes I scare myself. (and everyone else too ubblol )

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
yep smile

there was always going to be new legislation proposed sethis.



but i think the patriot act is more far-reaching and far more invasive than the new legislation that labour has proposed (full text of briefing can be found here).



plus, they still have to get the legislation passed in parliament and there will be a lot of clarification and discussion/debate before that (i hope)...



"We will consult widely on these measures, including with the other political parties of course. It is evidently a heavy agenda to take forward, but it's necessary, and let me also again repeat and make it clear, if legislation can be made ready in time, and the right consensus is achieved, we are ready to recall parliament in September, at least to begin the debate over these measures.



I want to make it clear yet again that this is not in any way whatever aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Great Britain. We know that this fringe of extremism does not truly represent Islam. We know British Muslims, in general, abhor the actions of the extremists. We acknowledge once again Muslim contribution to our country and welcome it. We welcome those who visit our country from abroad in peace, welcome those who know that in this country the respect and tolerance towards others which we believe in, is the surest guarantee of freedom and progress for people of all religious faiths.



But coming to Britain is not a right, and even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and it's people have no place here. Over the coming months in the courts, in Parliament, in debate and engagement with all parts of our communities, we will work to turn these sentiments into reality, and that is my duty as Prime Minister."



if you assume that when/if they come into being, that the new powers will be abused, then they are a bad idea (duh wink).

but with that viewpoint, any power that can be abused is dangerous - which by definition, is pretty much all of them shrug



i understand your reservations, but personally, i think religious extremeism directed at inciting violence is a disgusting practice and properly considered legislation against it is not a bad thing in my world.



frosty - the important issue as i see it is not how many young muslims sympathise with terrorist attacks or even how many think they were necessary - it is why they think these things that i am interested in.

when british citizens condone the mass killing of their fellow citizens to bring attention to a ploitical or religious issue, we have a big problem.

how many of the people that said the attacks were 'necessary' actually considered or even support peaceful political action/protest to clarify their views?

as far as i can tell, these people choose religion to be their justification for, and their drive towards, violence.



getting britain to leave iraq is far from the only issue and imho, is not the principle issue for religious extremeists.



i'm pretty sure the taliban were not a figment of my imagination...





cole. x
EDITED_BY: coleman (1123499767)

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Yes, but the difficulty arises when you try to work out what the line is.

Muslim 1: I think the terrorists have the right idea. Where can I join up?

Muslim 2: The terrorists are evil and disgusting and a stain on our people.

Muslim 3: I'm kinda curious as to why anyone feels the need to blow people up. I don't want to myself, but I would like to know what they're thinking.

Under the new legislation, Muslims 1 and 3 are capable of being arrested, and possibly deported. Now I'd call Muslim 1 a bad person, but Muslim 3 sounds like he's almost got my attitude. You can be deported for wanting to get more information on something? That's what the new laws say.

And how do you tell these people apart, when you feel like searching them?

And on the PM's point about the duty to uphold our way of life, sorry, but I don't agree. I would agree that you have a duty to obey the law, but that's as far as it goes. Going by the majority at the moment, then the "Way of life" for teenagers is either being a Chav, or a Stoner. I'm neither, so does that make me guilty of "not conforming to our way of life"? Who says that just because you live in a country you have to lose your individuality? If you went to live in Russia, then I somehow doubt you'd be flying their flag, singing their anthems, and "sustaining the Russian way of life".

I agree that inciting racial and religious hatred is bad. It's against the law already. What I disagree with is the specific targeting of Muslims, when I can point out several fundamentalist Christians who are just as bad.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: Sethis


Under the new legislation, Muslims 1 and 3 are capable of being arrested, and possibly deported. Now I'd call Muslim 1 a bad person, but Muslim 3 sounds like he's almost got my attitude. You can be deported for wanting to get more information on something? That's what the new laws say.





i don't think they do say that do they?
they have not been set out specifically yet so this is guesswork based on the ramifications of the patriot act no?
and where exactly was the word muslim mentioned before you introduced it...?

as for "wanting to get more information on something", it depends how you try to find out the information.
for me, there is a big difference between pondering what the motivations of the extremeists are and downloading terrorist material/posting on forums that glorify acts of terror.

Written by:


And on the PM's point about the duty to uphold our way of life, sorry, but I don't agree. I would agree that you have a duty to obey the law, but that's as far as it goes. Going by the majority at the moment, then the "Way of life" for teenagers is either being a Chav, or a Stoner. I'm neither, so does that make me guilty of "not conforming to our way of life"? Who says that just because you live in a country you have to lose your individuality? If you went to live in Russia, then I somehow doubt you'd be flying their flag, singing their anthems, and "sustaining the Russian way of life".





the 'way of life' is exemplified by the law of the land.
fundamentalist muslims believe that the laws of the koran are the first and last laws they should have to abide by - no matter what country they are living in.
that's what an 'islamist superstate' is.
the british way of life is not only about how you are free to live and express yourself as an individual but is also about how each member of society plays a part in the national and local communities.
with an exclusionary muslim state within the uk, how exactly can we expect our country to function?

east london is a great example as there are several heavily defined ethnic minority communities that manage to not become separatist - part of the british way of life (imho) is that segregation is abhored while cultural diversity is embraced.

i disagree with your last point - the 'way of life' only restricts individuality when it imposes itself upon others' individualities.
(for example) if you moved to russia and were nationalised, you *should* be sustaining their way of life - i.e. paying taxes, abiding by their laws and respecting the freedoms and restrictions imposed by the government.
your individual choices beyond that are your own and that is what i am happy for the new legislation to aim to protect.

Written by:


I agree that inciting racial and religious hatred is bad. It's against the law already. What I disagree with is the specific targeting of Muslims, when I can point out several fundamentalist Christians who are just as bad.




what specifically made you think that the proposed legislation is directed at muslims over other religions?


cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


colemanSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: frosty


They weren't - but [the taliban] aren't Al Quaida (sp?) and aren't attacking us.





on one hand you say 'the religion unites them' and claim that that gives extremeists the right to act as a 'nation'.
but here you separate two closely linked groups of islamic extremeists from each other with no apparent diffence in context - which is it?

what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place.
do you think this opinion is the majority opinion in iraq?
one of the major problems for the extremeists with the new government is the fact that it that allows its people the choice of living in iraq under any of the muslim sects or even the choice of not being muslim at all.
i think the opinion they express through murder - that they don't agree with people having that kind of choice and anyone who disagrees with that deserves to die - is abhorrent.

Written by:


The religion is a problem because they view themselves as a nation - it's their brothers being attacked and killed... so no Iraq's not the only reason but it's a helluva good motivation. Then you've got the Israel situation... which is BANG out of order IMHO and I'm sure someone better informed could list many more.





i think its the extremes of the religion that are the problem, not the religion itself.
iraqi insurgents attack and kill members of the iraqi police force - are the police not muslims and their 'brothers and sisters' also?
or do their lives and beliefs suddenly not count because they chose to vote and support the government?
what about the muslims killed in the london bombings?
or do these muslims not count either because they do not have fundamentalist views?

i believe that the overwhelming majority of british (and international) muslims do not hold the view that the citizens of a country deserve to die for their individual religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), nor for the choices of the government that represents them.

Written by:


I think millions of people marching against the war and the millions who didn't vote for the goverment that got in might have something to do with that - I have to say my view is that it doesn't work either. If it does it's by luck not weight of numbers of worthiness of cause.

the religion unites them, the rest of the world provides the motivation and then goverment leaves them with sod all other option.

or that's my view on it and not really seen anything that counters it - the new attempts to simply silence these views only backs it up.





'sod all other option'?!
so you went on the march then - cool, me too smile
but when our political protest was not sucessful, did you decide it would be a good idea to bomb parliament?
or even better, did you go to a strongly held labour seat during the election and bomb the polling stations?
if you felt strongly enough about it surely you would have taken the only choice left to you - if you were left with 'no other choice' than to kill civilians until the governemnt took notice, why didn't you do it?

one question i've been asking myself recently is if you can't separate politics from extreme religious beliefs (which by definition are not subject to change), how can you possibly have a free society?
but beyond that, is it possible to develop a workable political framework without a religion as the original basis?


cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood


_Clare_BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)


Posted:
Well said Cole smile

Do you think this really is a free society in the first place? Is it possible to have a free society?

I think it would be difficult to develop any new framework which could not be identified by one group as being influenced by another in some way.

But we could take the essence which connects all religions (do to others as you would have them do to you...) and work from there?!

Incidentally, while I agree (as usual) with your posts, I would also add to this:

"what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place."

I would add that many insurgents are also acting out of anger towards an invading force and people they see 'supporting' that invading force.

If you treat people with respect, you get respect in return.
If you invade a country, break down their doors in the middle of the night and haul their husbands, fathers and children off to prison for nothing, you'll get resentment and anger.

Getting to the other side smile


Page: ...

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [terrorist * win] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > And the terrorists win [171 replies]

      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...