6 ms·

Great comment. I feel this principle should be applied to all ‘terrorists’. Try them under existing criminal law; no need to make new terrorist laws which only

by oska 11y ago

Great comment. I feel this principle should be applied to all ‘terrorists’. Try them under existing criminal law; no need to make new terrorist laws which only help promote their standing as ‘terrorists’ and, by extension, the causes they seek to promote. The whole terrorism thing is essentially a ‘game’ between the authorities and the self-perceived cause-warriors, with the general public being pulled in as collateral damage (both as direct victims and, more broadly, as the losers of individual and social freedoms). The people, acting in their own self-interest, should refuse to let this sick, manufactured drama continue and that means refusing both sides their roles (as ‘terrorists’ or ‘defenders from terrorism’).

NoCulturalFit 11y ago
Not in my book. In my book any association with Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusrah (Al Qaida) and ISIS is justification for their hanging. Especially ISIS. Ask any Iraqi who had relatives in Speicher. Your white guilt horse-shit used to peddle Greenwalds, Moore or Werlemans books and other crap doesn't work on us anymore. Are you Swedish by any chance?
- malkia 11y ago
  This way you are just setting their standards as yours.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- x0054 11y ago
  Not in your book? Why? What are you concerned about? Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, even if they do not participate in any direct fighting them selves. Penalties for conspiracy to commit a crime are usually identical to penalties for actually committing the crime. So anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws. Same result, but we don't get a bunch of new laws on the book, laws that can and will be abused in the future. The US government is already doing it. Take the in this idiotic case of a Pennsylvania woman accused of terrorism and chemical-weapons violations. [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned-paramour/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned...
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    > Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder [...] so anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws The article argues explicitly against that reasoning, for the record: > After all, in a government or other large social community there exists among the top officials, civilian and military, together with their financial and industrial collaborators, a kind of over-all working arrangement which may always be looked upon, if its invidious connotation be disregarded, as a "conspiracy." That is, government implies "breathing together." And is everyone who, knowing the purposes of the party in power, participates in government or joins with officials to be held for every act of the government? > To take a case which is perhaps not so obvious, is everyone who joins a political party, even one with some illegal purposes, to be held liable to the world for the action that every member takes, even if that action is not declared in the party platform and was not known to or consented to by the person charged as a wrongdoer? To put upon any individual such responsibility for action of the group seems literally to step back in history to a point before the prophet Ezekiel and to reject the more recent religious and democratic teachings that guilt is personal.
    - x0054 11y ago
      This is why I specified "meaningful way." I guess I should be more clear, but the standard for conspiracy in most jurisdictions is an overt act. So, for instance, contributing money to "Bomb X" campaign, traveling to Syria to join the fighting, or sending guns and equipment to ISIS would be all overt acts. Posting the ISIS logo on your FB wall would not qualify. I just feel that there are plenty of existing criminal laws to deal with most terrorists.
- dang 11y ago
  > Your white guilt horse-shit You can't do this here. Please comment civilly or not at all. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
malkia 11y ago
Like recently with the morrocan guy and the french train. It could be that he just wanted to the "good-ole" robbery.... Like the big train robbery... It was never considered a terrorist act.

by oska 11y ago

NoCulturalFit 11y ago

Not in my book. In my book any association with Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusrah (Al Qaida) and ISIS is justification for their hanging. Especially ISIS. Ask any Iraqi who had relatives in Speicher. Your white guilt horse-shit used to peddle Greenwalds, Moore or Werlemans books and other crap doesn't work on us anymore. Are you Swedish by any chance?

malkia 11y ago
This way you are just setting their standards as yours.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
x0054 11y ago
Not in your book? Why? What are you concerned about? Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, even if they do not participate in any direct fighting them selves. Penalties for conspiracy to commit a crime are usually identical to penalties for actually committing the crime. So anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws. Same result, but we don't get a bunch of new laws on the book, laws that can and will be abused in the future. The US government is already doing it. Take the in this idiotic case of a Pennsylvania woman accused of terrorism and chemical-weapons violations. [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned-paramour/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned...
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  > Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder [...] so anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws The article argues explicitly against that reasoning, for the record: > After all, in a government or other large social community there exists among the top officials, civilian and military, together with their financial and industrial collaborators, a kind of over-all working arrangement which may always be looked upon, if its invidious connotation be disregarded, as a "conspiracy." That is, government implies "breathing together." And is everyone who, knowing the purposes of the party in power, participates in government or joins with officials to be held for every act of the government? > To take a case which is perhaps not so obvious, is everyone who joins a political party, even one with some illegal purposes, to be held liable to the world for the action that every member takes, even if that action is not declared in the party platform and was not known to or consented to by the person charged as a wrongdoer? To put upon any individual such responsibility for action of the group seems literally to step back in history to a point before the prophet Ezekiel and to reject the more recent religious and democratic teachings that guilt is personal.
  - x0054 11y ago
    This is why I specified "meaningful way." I guess I should be more clear, but the standard for conspiracy in most jurisdictions is an overt act. So, for instance, contributing money to "Bomb X" campaign, traveling to Syria to join the fighting, or sending guns and equipment to ISIS would be all overt acts. Posting the ISIS logo on your FB wall would not qualify. I just feel that there are plenty of existing criminal laws to deal with most terrorists.
dang 11y ago
> Your white guilt horse-shit You can't do this here. Please comment civilly or not at all. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

malkia 11y ago

Like recently with the morrocan guy and the french train. It could be that he just wanted to the "good-ole" robbery.... Like the big train robbery... It was never considered a terrorist act.