4 ms·

We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot. Free media means that the govt. has lost control of the con

We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot. Free media means that the govt. has lost control of the conversation, they want it back. The key sentence in that piece is ' the government wanted more power to deal with material "that may not be illegal but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive".' One man will decide what 60million people "want to see". I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom. The government already raised the spectre by trying to have Facebook remove a link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/David-Cameron-condemns-Facebooks-beheading-films.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/Davi... It's Daily Mail politics, by people who don't understand.

Jugurtha 13y ago
_We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot._ An assassination attempt on a King few centuries ago, oh my... I agree partly with you on the liberty side, that's why I said I don't like what Google is doing (i.e: The way they are doing things) and by extension, the way the UK is doing things.. The way the Government here is doing things: Watch whatever you want, but if we catch you, you're screwd. _I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom._ :D http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked Who's anyone to deny them that freedom, huh.. PS: If anyone of you clicked on that link - which I really expect to be a 404-, I hope you're using TOR, VPN, SSH tunneling, God mode encryption and really make sure every packet your machine is sending and receiving is immaculate :) PPS: Oh, and if you clicked, you're a bad person..
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Actually if you know UK history you'd know that terrorism has been both religious (in the form of Protestant and Catholic conflicts), territorial (in the the form of sovereignty issues with places like Ireland and Scotland), as well as a variety of political intrigues and plots to balance out the power of the monarchy and the people. Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar...
  - Jugurtha 13y ago
    I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      ok, I didn't get that from your original post but I understand the question. My take on it is that the UK has tried a variety of reaction strategies to terrorist threats which have had varying levels of success. And the people have varying levels of trust in their government which then colors their interpretation of the actions a government might take and the reaction to their actions. In many ways I think the UK fears religious persecution more than most governments.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jugurtha 13y ago
        That makes sense. It's a really complex problem, it's really hard. Here, there was a program for reconciliation. I mean, we've had it good for the last decade. It's really not the same anymore and there is peace, but the sequels are there. And there are a whole bunch of new problems: What do you do with the children born in those terrorist families (because they lived wives and children in the mountains. These children were endoctrinated. What do you do with them). The reconciliation program promised amnisty to terrorists who surrender. They were given money, etc, and immunity to start over.. But this brought other problems: When some of them don't have the decency to move away from where they started, and return to the very neighborhood they did some evil actions in. If you ever talk to them, you have big problems. This turned them into "business men" who are untouchable. And I let you imagine the frustration and resentment of the average citizen, especially the poor. People will think "Heck, it pays to be a terrorist.. I should've killed some people to get those benefits, huh.." There's also conflict with people in the military who sacrificed their lives and all, who gave an arm, a leg, an eye for the peace and who got nothing, to see these terrorists drive in beamers with immunity... Not to mention that many who surrendered and who got benefits, money and situation... Eventually constitued back-up and provided supplies for the still-active ones. Some of them get busted, but you can easily make the case that "Once a terrorist, always a terrorist". This gets contrasted by those who truly surrendered and repented. So you can't throw them all in one bin. And so on, so forth... It's a tough, tough, tough question.
- SixSigma 13y ago
  because they aren't kids being fucked who just happen to get filmed reportage is not the same

Jugurtha 13y ago

_We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot._ An assassination attempt on a King few centuries ago, oh my... I agree partly with you on the liberty side, that's why I said I don't like what Google is doing (i.e: The way they are doing things) and by extension, the way the UK is doing things.. The way the Government here is doing things: Watch whatever you want, but if we catch you, you're screwd. _I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom._ :D http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked Who's anyone to deny them that freedom, huh.. PS: If anyone of you clicked on that link - which I really expect to be a 404-, I hope you're using TOR, VPN, SSH tunneling, God mode encryption and really make sure every packet your machine is sending and receiving is immaculate :) PPS: Oh, and if you clicked, you're a bad person..

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Actually if you know UK history you'd know that terrorism has been both religious (in the form of Protestant and Catholic conflicts), territorial (in the the form of sovereignty issues with places like Ireland and Scotland), as well as a variety of political intrigues and plots to balance out the power of the monarchy and the people. Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar...
- Jugurtha 13y ago
  I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    ok, I didn't get that from your original post but I understand the question. My take on it is that the UK has tried a variety of reaction strategies to terrorist threats which have had varying levels of success. And the people have varying levels of trust in their government which then colors their interpretation of the actions a government might take and the reaction to their actions. In many ways I think the UK fears religious persecution more than most governments.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jugurtha 13y ago
      That makes sense. It's a really complex problem, it's really hard. Here, there was a program for reconciliation. I mean, we've had it good for the last decade. It's really not the same anymore and there is peace, but the sequels are there. And there are a whole bunch of new problems: What do you do with the children born in those terrorist families (because they lived wives and children in the mountains. These children were endoctrinated. What do you do with them). The reconciliation program promised amnisty to terrorists who surrender. They were given money, etc, and immunity to start over.. But this brought other problems: When some of them don't have the decency to move away from where they started, and return to the very neighborhood they did some evil actions in. If you ever talk to them, you have big problems. This turned them into "business men" who are untouchable. And I let you imagine the frustration and resentment of the average citizen, especially the poor. People will think "Heck, it pays to be a terrorist.. I should've killed some people to get those benefits, huh.." There's also conflict with people in the military who sacrificed their lives and all, who gave an arm, a leg, an eye for the peace and who got nothing, to see these terrorists drive in beamers with immunity... Not to mention that many who surrendered and who got benefits, money and situation... Eventually constitued back-up and provided supplies for the still-active ones. Some of them get busted, but you can easily make the case that "Once a terrorist, always a terrorist". This gets contrasted by those who truly surrendered and repented. So you can't throw them all in one bin. And so on, so forth... It's a tough, tough, tough question.
SixSigma 13y ago
because they aren't kids being fucked who just happen to get filmed reportage is not the same