|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 24 2017 23:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:
What's an "ISIS leaflet" or a "Nazi leaflet"? If it specifically has some ISIS or Nazi symbology that's specifically outlawed, then sure. No problem.
But that line was blurred a long time ago when fascists started arguing that anybody who doesn't endorse fascism as a counter to terrorism is therefore a sympathizer to terrorists themselves. Hence why Geert Wilders wanted to completely outlaw Islam in the Netherlands, etc. The specific examples of the leaflets were given at the start of the discussion They were leaflets saying "fight for Islam" and "resist the modern crusaders". SoSexy wants those to be punished by life imprisonment with no appeal.
The phrases are so vague and without context that they could many meanings. Resist the modern crusaders could be any form of resistance, including non-violent. Fight for Islam could just as easily be a call to resist terrorist as it could be a call to terrorism.
Of course, Sexy’s argument requires us to add the context to infer that they are promoting terrorism. Because what else could they be? Read between the lines. See what our mind knows is there.
|
People distributing leaflets encouraging terrorist acts in the UK are committing an offence under the Terrorism Act. However it is not illegal to be distribute distasteful leaflets. Neither being a Nazi nor expousing the beliefs in that Khalifah leaflet is illegal, nor should they be. UK should not be prosecuting people for thought crimes. The problem is that you are proposing life imprisonment without trail for anybody on a watch list. Note that this would include Green activists, the entire Labour Party in the 1950s, and tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland.
|
On March 24 2017 23:31 SoSexy wrote:
Good. Then we agree that people doing ISIS propaganda should be arrested the same way people doing nazi propaganda are arrested in Germany. I doubt that makes us totalitarian.
Let's be clear here, ISIS propaganda literally means something that is directly supportive of ISIS (e.g. "Here's their Swiss bank account #, please transfer immediately" or "Drop what you're doing and go bomb some place"), not any sort of defense of Islam or Muslims.
There are some who say that, if you point out that 99% of Muslims are peaceful, you are a terrorist sympathizer. Much of the first-world is dangerously close to endorsing that appalling thinking, which is why it's kind of a big deal when you endorse life imprisonment for distributing "ISIS propaganda."
|
I think all the Brits in the thread are in agreement for the first time ever. I would happily fight for freedom of speech in the UK; a one in a million chance of being a victim of terrorism is nothing. And that's assuming that arresting these people would stop terrorism as opposed to stopping leaflets and street preaching.
The guy in question was probably radicalised in prison. We need to address that, and we need to address integration.
|
United States43278 Posts
The Germans in 1940 made the most lethal airforce in the world in the hope that if they dropped enough bombs on London we'd stop caring about freedom. They had constant overtures for peace, we could stop the terror whenever we wanted and feel safe without losing our national sovereignty, all we'd have to do is compromise our values. Didn't work.
So they got together all of the best scientists in the nation and spent a vast amount of money on inventing rocketry from scratch and then they started dropping V-1s on London. And again peace, and the division of the world between Britain and Germany, is offered if only we'd compromise our values. Didn't work.
So they got together all their best scientists and invented what is effectively the dawn of the space age with the V-2 for the cost of about $40,000,000,000 in today's money. And they started dropping those on London in the hope that it would finally convince the British to give up on their values. Didn't work.
I doubt you'll find any Brit who looks at that and goes "yeah, but what if some Arab attacks us with a knife". It's times like these where as a nation we know who we are and what we stand for. Maybe someday someone will invent a weapon so terrible that we decide to shit on the memories of all those who came before us and compromise our values in the name of staying safe. It's not impossible. But we do know that'll it'll take more than the smartest engineers in Europe inventing the most advanced weapons in existence at the time and raining unstoppable death from the skies on our cities, because someone already tried that and it didn't work.
Honestly I don't know who looks sillier. The retard trying to break us with cutlery or the Italian in this topic saying we should give in.
|
Yeah Kwark, the allied forces didn't give in during the second world war. They just dropped two atomic bombs and interned japanese people in America...
|
United States43278 Posts
Really not sure how either of those points are relevant to anything other than the growing body of evidence for the refund you so clearly deserve from whichever educational institution you are currently in the process of humiliating by association.
|
On March 25 2017 01:57 SoSexy wrote:
Yeah Kwark, the allied forces didn't give in during the second world war. They just dropped two atomic bombs and interned japanese people in America...
Whoa there, that was the US and we did that all on our own. I don't even think we ask the UK for input on our plans for Japan. We also document that in this history books and don't shy away from it. And its not like Japan is this cute little nation that didn't promote the systematic rape of thousands of Chinese women during their occupation.
Stick to the UK to make your arguments, rather than wandering to US history.
|
AHAHAH! Good one.
Plansix, there are plenty in British history too.
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” Winston Churchill during the Bengal famine. What a wonderful display of keeping our values!
|
I'm failing to see what your argument is, SoSexy. It seems to be:
1. The USA and UK are guilty of some bad things.
2. Therefore dispense of our freedom.
????
|
Once again, what does that have to do with anything?
On March 25 2017 02:10 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm failing to see what your argument is, SoSexy. It seems to be:
1. The USA and UK are guilty of some bad things.
2. Therefore dispense of our freedom.
????
Kwark evoked WW2, so the classic internet response is to point out that the US and UK were bad at those times too, so all the examples of them being good from that era are invalid. Or something.
|
United States43278 Posts
I'm somewhat curious which will happen first. Will SoSexy finally come with a point which is relevant to the discussion of the British history of standing against fascism (Japanese internment by the United States and the atomic bombs so far have been the highlights of his argument) or will he become aware of the irony of an Italian attacking the British record on standing up to fascism.
Although it appears he's gone for option C, using Churchill of all people as an example of how little the British were interested in standing up against fascism.
So far the argument has taken the following path.
Me: The British have an established history of standing up to fascism in the face of extreme terror and violence, we're not about to stop because of some guy with a knife.
SoSexy: If the British hate fascism so much then how come Japanese internment by the US?
Me: ?????
SoSexy: Oh yeah, well if the British hate fascism so much then how come the atomic bombings of Japan by the US?!?!?!?
Me: ?????
SoSexy: Okay, well if the British hate fascism so much then how come Winston Churchill?!?!?!??!
Me: Wow
|
No. It was a reply to Kwark, who said that Brits are superior because they didn't give in their values. Truth is they did, when they found convenient - like everyone else on this planet, and they did not turn into a totalitarian state. Extreme times call for extreme measures. You remind me of Chamberlain and Daladier - underestimating the problem and hoping that everything will turn out fine, then realizing that it was too late.
|
So Britain should turn into a policestate because some asshole drove a car into people?
Or what are you arguing for?
|
On March 25 2017 02:14 SoSexy wrote:
No. It was a reply to Kwark, who said that Brits are superior because they didn't give in their values. Truth is they did, when they found convenient - like everyone else on this planet, and they did not turn into a totalitarian state. Extreme times call for extreme measures. You remind me of Chamberlain and Daladier - underestimating the problem and hoping that everything will turn out fine, then realizing that it was too late.
Nobody is defending the crimes of the USA and the UK, but are you going to be an imbecile and propose that their crimes are at all comparable to the fascist and Leninist states of the 20th century?
SoSexy, answer me this: what is the plan of Islamic terrorists to defeat the liberal democracies of the first world? What do you think their strategy is?
|
On March 25 2017 02:14 SoSexy wrote:
No. It was a reply to Kwark, who said that Brits are superior because they didn't give in their values. Truth is they did, when they found convenient - like everyone else on this planet, and they did not turn into a totalitarian state. Extreme times call for extreme measures. You remind me of Chamberlain and Daladier - understimating the problem and hoping that everything will turn out fine, then realizing that it was too late.
It is statements like these that reveal how poorly you understand history. Liking Kwark and his views to the actions of Chamberlain is comical. Claiming these are extreme times akin to that of the 1930-1940 is comical. You grew up in an era so devoid of real crisis, suffering and instability that the first sign of it has you advocating to suspend the very foundation modern western values and goverment. You would throw away your civil liberties based on some petty fear based on a poor understanding of the world. You call people cowards and naive because they have the spine and all you have is cynicism.
|
United States43278 Posts
You're not getting this, even though it's really fucking simple. The British were faced with a constant choice between making peace on favourable terms and defeating fascism. The Axis powers didn't want to conquer Britain, they just wanted Britain to leave them alone. There were countless overtures and even as Allied soldiers crossed the Rhine Nazi leadership was still certain that eventually Britain would come around and join them in the fight against the Soviet Union.
The bombing campaign against British civilians was done for the express purpose of terrorizing the British public to break their will to resist fascism through threatening their safety. It was a deliberate policy of terrorism. You can check, Goring wrote down why he was doing it at the time.
The V-1 campaign was done for the same reason, a terrorism campaign to force the British public to choose between continuing the fight against fascism and their own personal safety.
The V-2 campaign was done for the same reason.
The point is clear. Britain chose time and time again to endure horrific terrorism willingly rather than give in to fascism. There's no other way of reading that history, the German motives behind those campaigns are a matter of historical record, as are the peace overtures. That is the point I am making which you are somehow missing.
A lot of people endure horrific things that are inflicted upon them during war because they lack the power to end it. That was never the case with the British public suffering from a deliberate policy of Nazi terrorism. The British public have the honour of verifiable proof that we would rather choose to endure terrorism on the largest and most technologically advanced scale that existed at the time than allow the free people of Europe to suffer under fascist rule. We're probably not alone in feeling that way, but we are alone as the only nation to have actually been tested in that fashion and found worthy. That's our history and that's why we're not going to change due to some idiot with a knife.
|
One point that's not received attention is the claim that due to the crude nature of the attack its likely that the IS network in UK is fairly weak.
This would indicate that the environment in UK is not conducive to the development of an embedded terrorist network. I would imagine that this is due to security measures but also the broader culture within the UK. Ie that when Muslim groups say they and other Muslims are against these atrocities they're right.
|
Also I read on some British newspaper (BBC, Guardian, or Telegraph? Don't remember) that this was the "deadliest terror attack in a decade." If so then Brits have it really good on terrorism.
|
Can't agree with that. There are plots foiled in the UK on a very frequent basis. That is testament to our intelligence services, nothing more. It is definitely not coincidental that the attacker in this case was in Luton and Birmingham.
Brexit related, as it gets highlighted every time a bank talks about moving staff out the UK:
Deutsche Bank signs up new London HQ in show of faith in Brexit Britain
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-london-idUSKBN16U2IO?il=0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
