Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." That may have been an apt quote for the 18th century but unfortunately this is the 21st century and you need to start living in it!
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 That may have been an apt quote for the 18th century but unfortunately this is the 21st century and you need to start living in it! “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.†(Someone who, ironically, shares your views on the role of the state) --Adolf Hitler
macbeth Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 That may have been an apt quote for the 18th century but unfortunately this is the 21st century and you need to start living in it! i agree ; its time some people started to think about the horrific results of a terrorist attack; not the minor inconvenience of a few suspects held in reasonable conditions until we can be sure they can be released; its time some people came out from under their carapace of rhetoric and saw the horror for themselves!!
macbeth Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.†(Someone who, ironically, shares your views on the role of the state) --Adolf Hitler this quote could also apply to suicide bombers; but of course you may know different;
Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 this quote could also apply to suicide bombers; but of course you may know different; ....................and High Court Judges
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 this quote could also apply to suicide bombers; but of course you may know different; It could apply to brainwashed suicide bombers, yes. Fascism is not the answer, though. Al Quaeda have already announced that they will not attack countries who withdraw from Iraq...
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 ....................and High Court Judges It's unfortunate for our leaders that the High Court judge made that ruling. It's very fortunate for all men who love freedom that he did.
The People's Hero Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 I think you'll find that we are more at threat from lone sympathisers and die-hards than the top brass, decision makers within Al-Quaeda. The Al Quaeda organisation may well have been reported to have said the above, that does not mean that all of the die hard sympathisers will see it that way. Besides, withdrawing from Iraq should be a decision which is taken on the basis of considered thought over the 'right' thing to do. Not as a reaction to a terrorist threat. Pandering to the will of terrorist organisations is not the way out of this.
Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 It could apply to brainwashed suicide bombers, yes. Fascism is not the answer, though. Al Quaeda have already announced that they will not attack countries who withdraw from Iraq... .......and you believe that do ya ? Tell me! How many Indonesian, Tanzanaian and Kenyan troops are there in Iraq?
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Pandering to the will of terrorist organisations is not the way out of this. Exactly. Which is why we should all applaud the decision of the High Court not to pander to the state.
davieG Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Exactly. Which is why we should all applaud the decision of the High Court not to pander to the state. Well as long as there are no Scots involved everything will work itself out.
breadandcheese Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Exactly. Which is why we should all applaud the decision of the High Court not to pander to the state. To compare the government of the UK to a terrorist organisation is quite insulting. We are facing a new threat of asymmetric warfare never seen before. This fine state we live in encourages debate and democracy ensuring many safeguards that enrich our lives. The government has embarked on a policy it sees as best protecting this country. Whether you agree with it or not, its motives in that respect cannot be faulted. Unfortunately, the realities of today are one of asymmetric warfare, such that the traditional tag of underdog and oppressor no-longer applies. In the same vain, the tags of civilian and enemy combatant are also very blurred. Under the Geneva conventions, an enemy combatant can be detained indefinitely until the war is over. At what point is a potential terrorist living in Manchester, who believes he is fighting a holy war, a soldier or a civilian? At what point does UK Law end and the governance of the Geneva conventions begin? Where does the burden of proof lie should you suspect someone to be a perceived enemy combatant? Are they to be held under the rules of warfare or under civilian law? Quite tricky I am sure you will agree, but to compare the UK state to a terrorist organisation that the high court did not pander to, is just plain degrading.
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Well as long as there are no Scots involved everything will work itself out. Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh.
Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh. Now we get it! Your vitriol of all things Blair stems from your hatred of the Scots
Thracian Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 To compare the government of the UK to a terrorist organisation is quite insulting. We are facing a new threat of asymmetric warfare never seen before. This fine state we live in encourages debate and democracy ensuring many safeguards that enrich our lives. The government has embarked on a policy it sees as best protecting this country. Whether you agree with it or not, its motives in that respect cannot be faulted. Unfortunately, the realities of today are one of asymmetric warfare, such that the traditional tag of underdog and oppressor no-longer applies. In the same vain, the tags of civilian and enemy combatant are also very blurred. Under the Geneva conventions, an enemy combatant can be detained indefinitely until the war is over. At what point is a potential terrorist living in Manchester, who believes he is fighting a holy war, a soldier or a civilian? At what point does UK Law end and the governance of the Geneva conventions begin? Where does the burden of proof lie should you suspect someone to be a perceived enemy combatant? Are they to be held under the rules of warfare or under civilian law? Quite tricky I am sure you will agree, but to compare the UK state to a terrorist organisation that the high court did not pander to, is just plain degrading. Brilliantly put and an excellent starting point and subject for national debate.
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 To compare the government of the UK to a terrorist organisation is quite insulting. It's apt. If anything, it's an insult to terrorist organisations who are generally responsible for far less bloodshed than the UK government. It is the UK government who is trying to undermine our way of life - especially liberty and rule of law - by spreading terror. If we do not give them unlimited powers to do whatever they want, they tell us, then we will be blown up. Fυck that. We shouldn't pander to these terrorists. We shouldn't give away our way of life, our love of freedom and of justice, just because these thugs threatened us. We should fight to preserve what it is that makes England great.
Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 It's apt. If anything, it's an insult to terrorist organisations who are generally responsible for far less bloodshed than the UK government. It is the UK government who is trying to undermine our way of life - especially liberty and rule of law - by spreading terror. If we do not give them unlimited powers to do whatever they want, they tell us, then we will be blown up. Fυck that. We shouldn't pander to these terrorists. We shouldn't give away our way of life, our love of freedom and of justice, just because these thugs threatened us. We should fight to preserve what it is that makes England great. Seeing as your a fan of Benjamin Franklin another of his quote's for ya: "If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead, either write something worth reading or do things worth writing"
hairy Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Your a Fool What a mature response! I am sure you would not like it if they arrested you as a potential terorist and held you without charge or evidence. A heckler to Tony Blair at the labour party conference was detained under the anti terrorism act, that is until the press found out, then Tony had to let him go. Thats where freedom of speech gets you these days. One of the functions of the legal system is protect our human rights. That is all the judge is doing.
The People's Hero Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Seriously though - in this period of heightened risk, you could do worse than purchase terrorism insurance.
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Now we get it! Your vitriol of all things Blair stems from your hatred of the Scots I don't hate the Scots. I just don't think it's healthy that being a proud Scotsman necessarily means sweeping the endemic racism in your country under the carpet. I would hate to see a similar situation down here, where the English are unable to confront their problems head on for fear of being labelled unpatriotic.
Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 What a mature response! I am sure you would not like it if they arrested you as a potential terorist and held you without charge or evidence. A heckler to Tony Blair at the labour party conference was detained under the anti terrorism act, that is until the press found out, then Tony had to let him go. Thats where freedom of speech gets you these days. One of the functions of the legal system is protect our human rights. That is all the judge is doing. What about the folks of London and their human right to travel freely without fear of the number 49 bus their travelling on being bombed?
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 What about the folks of London and their human right to travel freely without fear of the number 49 bus their travelling on being bombed? It is the government who profits most from instilling this fear into people. Even if, as happens in your wet dreams, Britain was turned into an ultra-fascist dictatorship where the state could do whatever they want with total impunity, we would still be at risk from terrorist attacks while the police run around shooting innocent foreigners in the head.
Head Honcho Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 It is the government who profits most from instilling this fear into people. Even if, as happens in your wet dreams, Britain was turned into an ultra-fascist dictatorship where the state could do whatever they want with total impunity, we would still be at risk from terrorist attacks while the police run around shooting innocent foreigners in the head. Since March 2003 Tony Blair has gone from being a popular leader to one of the most unpopular in recent times. So how on earth do you come to the conclusion that government profits from fear of terrorism?
Lemon Harpic Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 Since March 2003 Tony Blair has gone from being a popular leader to one of the most unpopular in recent times. So how on earth do you come to the conclusion that government profits from fear of terrorism? They are able to push through legislation that completely attacks our civil liberties that wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting off the ground if everyone weren't so jumpy about terrorism. They woulda gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling High Court judges.
hairy Posted 28 June 2006 Posted 28 June 2006 What about the folks of London and their human right to travel freely without fear of the number 49 bus their travelling on being bombed? and those in the twin towers who wanted to work along with the Spanish travelling to work. Lets not forget one of the reasons Bush and Blair for invading Iraq was protecting peoples human rights. Get me right here. There is a balance to find here between human rights and the protection of lives. To me the act went too far.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.