3 ms·
They also clearly gave a platform to Al Quaeda recruiter al-Awlaki. It's better to judge people by they actions rather than their words.
by adnam 9y ago
They also clearly gave a platform to Al Quaeda recruiter al-Awlaki. It's better to judge people by they actions rather than their words.
- dublinben 9y agoSo did YouTube, yet you don't see their executives being stopped and searched at borders.
- adnam 9y agoWhich is obviously not the same thing.
- vinceguidry 9y agoYouTube's only a platform in the technological sense. Think about what it is in the very basic sense, a raised platform in a public area. While YouTube is public, it is not raised. If you go to YouTube's public marketplace, you must build a raised platform yourself if you want to have one. It's the difference between me publishing your videos to my YouTube feed and PewDiePie publishing your videos up to his feed.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoYouTube actually is "raised" in the sense you describe, relative to other websites which could theoretically host video content (all of them). This is why people worry, with some justification, about YouTube censoring content. And, symmetrically, it's enough for other people to complain, again with some justification, that YouTube isn't censoring enough content and should be punished for that.
- vinceguidry 9y agoOk, let's stretch this analogy some more. It's not so much raised, it's just a different market. It's the difference between setting up your platform in your local village vs. doing it three days away in Jerusalem.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoI suggest that the relevant governments have always kept closer watch and tighter rein on what people are saying in Jerusalem than on what they're saying in the middle of nowhere.
- DanBC 9y agoSo did the Whitehouse and the Pentagon. Cage denounced his extremist views, and at their events he only spoke about imprisonment. Note that the imprisonment is probably what radicalised him - he was known as a moderate before he was detained.
- adnam 9y agoYou seem a nice chap, I'm not quite sure if you understand the real nature of the organisation you're sticking up for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10981050/The-evidence-shows-that-Cage-is-a-pro-terrorist-group.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1098105...
- valuearb 9y agoWhy did you link to an article that gives no evidence?
- adnam 9y agoThe article employs an advanced technology called "hypertext" whereby you can click the links embedded within it to find out more.
- valuearb 9y agoWhat is a psych evaluation supposed to tell me? The entire article is one sided assertions. Cage supports Aafia Siddiqui, but the article doesn't say why, or why it's wrong to support her. She was convicted, sure, but of what? "Five years later she reappeared in Ghazni, Afghanistan, was arrested by Afghan police and held for questioning. While in custody, Siddiqui told the FBI she had gone into hiding but later disavowed her testimony and stated she had been abducted and imprisoned. Supporters believe she was held captive at Bagram Air Force Base as a ghost prisoner—charges the US government denies. While in custody in Ghazni, police found documents and notes for making bombs plus containers of sodium cyanide in her possession. She was shot in the torso the next day by visiting U.S. FBI and Army personnel, allegedly after shooting at them with a rifle one of the interrogators had placed on the floor. She was extradited and flown to the US where in September 2008 she was indicted on charges of assault and attempted murder of a US soldier in the police station in Ghazni—charges she denied. She was convicted on 3 February 2010 and later sentenced to 86 years in prison." Seems pretty shady to me. Not unreasonable to think she might have been setup. Your posts are fact free smears of Cage.