|
Post by caretaker on Mar 11, 2009 16:41:21 GMT -5
Until someone can come up with a sound argument for why Britain is under any more threat now than during the 30 years the IRA and related groups were active, I'm not going to be convinced of the need for new anti-terror laws. And disgruntledcolonel's link shows us how easy they are to abuse - there's no way that guy's pic of a police van running a no-entry sign (which they can do, but only in emergencies, signified by the lights and siren being on) could have been useful to terrorists, the policeman was just covering his arse from potential disciplinary action. Mmm. Unfortunately, our experience with internment went above and beyond a police van breaking a traffic law. Hence the serious anger, petitions etc. I don't believe the anti-terror laws would be abused to the extent they were here, o'course, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Incarceration without trial = bad. When they started talking about extending the amount of time they were allowed, I swear my head came this close to exploding. So, pretty much a QFT here. Same shit, different name. It wasn't justified during the Troubles, so it sure as hell isn't justified now.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Mar 12, 2009 6:50:53 GMT -5
Until someone can come up with a sound argument for why Britain is under any more threat now than during the 30 years the IRA and related groups were active, I'm not going to be convinced of the need for new anti-terror laws.. Well some of those "new" laws (or proposed ones) were used in Northern Ireland in the earlier half of the troubles, so it won't be enw for us lol. Also, the Muslim extremeist's are a whole lot more bat shit insane mother-fucking crazy that the IRA etc. ever were. The Irish terror groups never had suicide bombers and they all had a clear objective, something they wanted to achieve that could, in theory, be achieved - ie civil rights (the troubles in the 60's/70's started as a civil rights issue originally before everything else got thrown in) and re-uniting the two Irish countries. Although after a few generations that kinda got forgotten about and it seemed to just become about being a dick. The muslims groups on the otherhand, does anyone even know what they actually want? What are their demands? They just seem to want to kill others because they're different. Having said that, however, I do actually agree with you. IMO all these laws will really do is piss people off, make many Muslims feel singled out and persucuted and will merely serve as a recruiting tool for the extremists to target the young, naive and alienated.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 12, 2009 18:13:32 GMT -5
Until someone can come up with a sound argument for why Britain is under any more threat now than during the 30 years the IRA and related groups were active, I'm not going to be convinced of the need for new anti-terror laws.. The Irish terror groups never had suicide bombers But the British Army sure does: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_BuddAnd the Australian army: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Arthur_WheatleyRandy Shughart and Gary Gordon (US Marines) landed in the middle of Mogidishu without support, which was essentially suicide, with the intent of saving a wounded or many wounded comrades. In the process, they would be killing many, many, many Somalis (who were, let's remember, defending their homes). I can't for the life of my figure out why a British soldier who charges a machine gun and chucks a grenade at it, being mortally wounded in the process is a hero, but an Arab who does the same thing to a US outpost around the Green Zone or something is a terrible abomination, an insult to his entire culture and all humanity. I don't get it. Yeah, if you kill civilians, that's bad. We do that too- a lot more in fact, and usually from great height. But if you don't, it's a legitimate act of war. The muslims groups on the otherhand, does anyone even know what they actually want? What are their demands? Withdrawal of support for the dictatorial House of Saud (fair enough you might think), for the US to force Israel to sign the Arab Peace Initiative, as they can, a withdrawal from Iraq (although they aren't interested so much in that anymore, since the Iraqis kicked them out). Ultimately, they want to take over the Middle East, just like the US.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Mar 13, 2009 3:42:27 GMT -5
I can't for the life of my figure out why a British soldier who charges a machine gun and chucks a grenade at it, being mortally wounded in the process is a hero, but an Arab who does the same thing to a US outpost around the Green Zone or something is a terrible abomination, an insult to his entire culture and all humanity. I don't get it. Ah well they're on the other side, that's why. Seems to be how it works as far as I can tell. Withdrawal of support for the dictatorial House of Saud (fair enough you might think), for the US to force Israel to sign the Arab Peace Initiative, as they can, a withdrawal from Iraq (although they aren't interested so much in that anymore, since the Iraqis kicked them out). Ultimately, they want to take over the Middle East, just like the US. Good answer lol. But how many of the members of such groups even know it's supposed to be about that? Mind you, I could say the same about the paramilitarties here, especially the Loyalist ones. I'd bet money on the majority of the regular members (not so much the leaders or the older members) of the UDA, UVF etc. had no fucking idea what was going on. BTW I base that on having gone to school with a lot of members of the UDA and UVF's junioner devisions...yes, they had divisions for CHILDREN. And they were all pretty much fucktarded and knew nothing about politics, the history of the country, Catholics or even their own fucking religion. I don't think they cared either, they just wanted to have a go at the "taigs" (not because they were a different religion per se, but because they were the other side who they'd been raised to think were the enemy).
|
|