UK Academics Arrested For Researching al-Qaida 681
D Afifi writes "Two political researchers at the University of Nottingham, in the UK, have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for downloading Al-Qaida material from a US government website. The material was to be used for research in terrorist tactics. There has been a huge public outcry, with university staff planning a march to demonstrate against the attack on academic freedom. Yet, one of the students, an Algerian, is still held in custody under immigration charges and is being fast-tracked for deportation."
No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an awful state of affairs when academics are being prosecuted under terror legislation.
I've lost all faith in the the UK and US governments since 9/11.
~Rob
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
Please RTFA. They were arrested under terror legislation, then the charges were dropped. They aren't being prosecuted under terror legislation.
However, it looks like during the investigation, the police discovered that one of them was an illegal immigrant. He is being deported for this.
Now he may or may not be here illegally, and he should definitely get the chance to defend himself before being deported, but please get your facts straight. Nobody is being prosecuted under terror legislation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
~Rob
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell I dont care anymore now... The only real thing you can do to stop the terrorists is to stop being afraid. 9/11 happened *1* time and in *1* place... The odds of you dying in a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small... You'd have a better shot at winning the lottery.
The only thing you can do is be smart and sensible about security.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did invading countries and wasting money = making you any safer?
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
But since you're just beating the straw out of that poor man, I suppose you don't really care what I have to say.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Interesting)
I never said taking action was foolish... Just taking action that is disproportionate to the real threat is foolish... After all you wouldn't call the SWAT team to take down someone who's late on their parking tickets now would you? Why does ever tom dick and harry need to take off their shoes when going through airport security because one idiot thought 'hey I'll try to light my shoes on fire and blow up the plane'...
Honestly, sit back and wait for it... Its not like they're gonna steal more planes and run them into buildings. The whole 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me' will prevent that... Besides passengers are now more apt to fight back with hijackers nowadays than they were before 9/11... which is one good thing that came out of all of that.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wanted to clarify why he's being deported. The brits' reaction to the downloading of the document was a bit extreme, but if ya want to live in a country then ya gotta play by their(sometimes idiotic) rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Netherlands used to be pretty much on the top of the freedom-list, but we've left that list long ago... I don't have that many facts about Canada at hand, but I believe it's not much better over there. And about the UK - I take a trip there (ok, ok, Scotland it is:-)) every now and then; I sense a lot more freedom over there, a lot less tensions between ethnical groups, police that don't act like they're Cartman "respect my authority" and so on.
So, in short, the UK may appear to be idiotic, but in essence they're a lot less idiotic than for example the Dutch are.
Greetings from the Netherlands.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Funny)
except there is still a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
But there is something fundamentally wrong with the government if you're an academic and visiting a web site brings you to the attention of the immigration departmnet in the first place.
Re:except there is still a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Well its a good thing they cant lock me up for a month without proving i did anything wrong?
Oh well at least there's no chance that they'll just turn blind eye while i go for a vacation on the Cuban cost?
Re:except there is still a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, he is, and he's right, and you're wrong. It's truly frighting how many people think government investigation of "thought crimes" is a good idea.
There IS something fundamentally wrong with a government if how it treats you is AT ALL based on what you're reading. The fact that the government even knows what you're reading is fundamentally wrong. And I don't have to know a flying frak about what you're reading to be in a position to say that.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, what if I don't want to live in a country? What choice do I have? Who has the right to tell me I must live in some country, or choose where they're going to send me when I don't live in it? I pretty much have to live in Antarctica.
That is simply not reasonable. When countries form a cover of all the reasonably habitable land, then people who seek personal freedom have nowhere to go. There is no more freedom. This has led to my own working definition of overpopulation.
due process? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wanted to clarify that the UK still has due process. Being *charged* with an immigration crime is not the same as being guilty of said crime. Your reaction to the arrest was a bit extreme, but if ya want to have free speech then ya gotta put up with reactionary (sometimes total bullshit) posts on message boards.
More like "Brazil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More like "Brazil" (Score:5, Interesting)
"There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do."
--Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mohammed Haneef, an Indian doctor in Queensland was arrested by the federal government over the most idiotically flimsy link to the airport attacks in the UK one could imagine.
Well, it quickly became was pretty clear they had nothing on him. In fact the government had so little on him that they purposefully and carefully fabricated, spun and lied to the press about what they did have on him. It all began to unravel and the truth came out thanks to his lawyer and a healthy grain of salt taken with the obvious rubbish the government was dishing out, so what do they do? Try cancel his visa on "Character Grounds" so that they can deport him before it gets to the courts and people find out how ruthless, and quite frankly evil that that particular government was being. Fortunately the courts saw through their bullshit and gave him back his Visa.
The government eventually dropped all charges, being that it had all been shown to be an obvious and complete farce.
The immigration line is bullshit, ALL immigrants in western countries can be deported for any reason what-so-ever if the respective Depts of Immi get told to get rid of them.
Mark my words this bloke's being deported because it's going to be an embarrassment to the government. It's the easiest way for them to get rid of him.
The worst thing is so many fools buy it hook, line and sinker. just like they did here with Haneef, there was plenty of people left looking like idiots when it came out what the government really was up to. Four months later that government (that had been in power for 12 years) was swept out of power in the biggest loss of power by a government in this countries history. It was that sort of dishonest, ruthless behaviour that caused it.
Hopefully the UK will be next.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
In these cases, and probably in your cited one, the innocents were condemned to appease the clamouring masses, rather than to serve any form of justice. And when such individuals make weak judgements initially, it is hardly surprising that they make even weaker ones when pressed further. 'Rock and a Hard Place' as it were.
Political democracy is at fault here, in that the 'masses' are generally as guilty of such ignorance as the politicians - not that I'd change it, but it is important that 'the system' can correct itself, as it seems to have done in the Australian cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe in the central US we get a different class of immigrants than those Britain deals with -- but the folks I meet here are smart, hard-working, well-educated, practical people more interested in good lives for themselves and their families than ideology from back home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe in the central US we get a different class of immigrants than those Britain deals with -- but the folks I meet here are smart, hard-working, well-educated, practical people more interested in good lives for themselves and their families than ideology from back home.
This isn't Kansas we're talking about
It's not just the class of immigrant, it's the fact that US culture is far more assimilationist. The fact is that in the UK, there are a large number of angry muslim men, and there are muslim preacher
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
From the second paragraph of TFA:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kansas or not, I'm pretty certain you didn't bother to read the article.
I did.
From the material presented, this is a pretty obvious case of abuse of power.
Please re-read my comment, I'm working on the presumption that it was a false alarm, I mention paranthetically that it may not have been. Nothing in the quote you cite (nor anything mentioned elsewhere in the article) pursuades me either way. Specifically ...
Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly rele
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the US, some years ago, a Middle Eastern student was arrested and charged with supporting terrorism primarily because he had a lot of material (none of which was illegal) that worried some folks. During the trial, a number of experts testified for the prosecution regarding how the materials are often used in preparing for terrorism. On cross examination, the attorney for the defense asked, "How much of the claimed material do you yourself possess?". Answer? Pretty much all of it - and posted on the researcher's Web site - obvious, as he was researching it! Followup question: "So why are you not on trial?".
The case fell apart and the defendant was acquitted. They didn't have any evidence he was planning anything or in touch with any terrorists. Just the material he possessed.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.055 [usc.edu]
Here are the (primary) rules specified for interpreting said statement. They are quite clear :
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.007 [usc.edu]
Needless to say the 8:55 statement is not allegorical (check for yourself and compare, for example, with the later chapters). So the verse is "of fundamental meaning" "clear" and "decisive". In any interpretation it is forbidden to go seek "hidden meanings", nor is any indirection allowed.
Here is one of the official "guides" for interpreting said statement. It, again, does not lack in clarity :
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20426 [tafsir.com]
"Allah states here that the worst moving creatures on the face of the earth are those who disbelieve, who do not embrace the faith, and break promises whenever they make a covenant, even when they vow to keep them,"
(this is later further elaborated to mean that peace treaties between muslims and non-muslims have exactly 1 purpose : deception of the non-muslims, allowing the muslims to become militarily stronger, with the further stipulation that regardless of any treaty, every 10 years there must be at least 1 attack, no matter what it may cost the muslims. There can never be peace. Only temporary (max 10 years) cessation of hostilities)
("islam" means "opression" in the military sense, meaning it is enforced, not voluntary, so that it has stuff like this is hardly surprising, generally "submission" is taken as a translation, but it does not refer to the speaker (that would be istaslam if it is militarily enforced, or astaslam if it is done freely), but to a third party, nor does it mean peace (which is salaam). It means actively making others submit (by the practice of "hisbah" for example), not submitting yourself, like in Christianity)
Mr. Atta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mr. Atta (Score:4, Insightful)
The govt. will more likely affect my normal every day life....the odds of getting hit by a terrorist attack are much lower.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
But immigrants are demonstratively dangerous to British culture, by the fact that they're resisting assimilation. That's the point: the immigrants have no right to be angry because they should have realized they'd be expected to assimilate, rather than import their old culture. If they wanted to remain in a traditional Muslim community, they should have stayed home!
And that goes for all immigrants, everywhere: Muslims in Britain should become [culturally] British, Mexicans in the U.S. should become American (or more precisely "USian," but that's not really a word), Americans in China should become Chinese (disregarding the fact that relatively few Americans immigrate), etc. Expecting the incumbent culture to accommodate you, as a newcomer, is disgustingly arrogant!
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe in the central US we get a different class of immigrants than those Britain deals with -- but the folks I meet here are smart, hard-working, well-educated, practical people more interested in good lives for themselves and their families than ideology from back home.
So the net result is that in the UK and Sweden you have lots of people who are essentially disconnected from society. In that sort of environment it's not surprising that some of them fall for the lie that Britain would be better under Shariah law.
Some UK muslims were actually captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban and they told the British soldiers who caught them that they would go back to the UK and claim benefits.
But people that are willing to use violence to replace liberal democracy with a far harsher system are 'cultural enemies'. Back in World War II British citizens who even made propaganda broadcasts for the Nazis were executed for treason. Certainly I think people who are willing to use or even threaten to use force to overthrow democracy are traitors.
But I'd change the immigration system too to try to attract more pro Western immigrants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but you don't often hear that.
You can get into the US if you have a job offer.
Or just walk across the border.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty neutral on the issue (which is REALLY rare here), though.
Yeah, but I suspect most Mexicans who enter the US illegally will assimilate quite fast.
There are parts of my town that look exactly like Mexico, whole stretches with nary a sign in English, with mariachi and polka music blaring, and not a single business does business in English. This doesn't seem like assimilation to me. In the colleges here we have a sanctioned club (MeCHA) based on retaking the original Mexican territories back, based on the claim of "La Raza" ("The Race"). 1 in 10 cars here have Aztec imagery on them. None of these point towards a desire to assimilation.
Unlike previous waves of American immigrants, they don't want to be American, they just want a living wage, while keeping their culture. Its more Balkanization than assimilation. During the last Mexican elections, illegal immigrants in the U.S. were allowed to vote in their homelands elections, and voted for a candidate whose platform was based on building a highway that dead-ended at the American border.
A minority of them are willing to learn English to the point of actually doing so.
Even if we offered the path to citizenship, they still wouldn't want to be culturally American. Sure, they would finally have to pay for services such as education and healthcare (and other tax-based services), but they still would want to be Mexican first, and American in income.
The problem with border security has nothing to do with Mexicans though. Its more along the lines of; "if a poor latino can walk across the border with his family undetected, what keeps a a clever terrorist from doing so with 100 pounds of explosives?"
To avoid the flamebate mod, I have nothing much against illegal immigrants, as long as they are forced to pay taxes, and live by the greater societies standards. I feel damn sorry for them, actually, since I know I'd rather not be in Mexico. My border policy would be turning them back, and handing them a book on Che Guevara (and the history of the American revolution), and a M16 with a box of ammo.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds exactly like assimilation to me. After all, you're saying they're behaving exactly the same as the Italians, the Polish, the Irish, and every other previous group of immigrants who came to America behaved when they arrived. They all wanted to keep their culture, too. And they all did, in fact. "Assimilation" into to America has never meant not keeping your culture, it's always been making your culture a part of America. It's also always been the case that the first generation never really fully plugs into things like language -- wasn't too long ago where you had to speak to your friend Tony's dad through him unless you knew Italian. And so on. I don't doubt all the things you said are true, the only false statement is the part where you say "Unlike previous waves of American immigrants" rather than "Exactly like all the previous waves of American immigrants".
As for your border policy, I think that kinda sucks. Border policy should be pretty simple: is this guy a known criminal? If so, deny entry or arrest and extradite him. If not, let him go to whichever side of the fence he wants, because the government has no right to restrict the liberty of any person barring criminal behavior. What bizarre value system gives government to right to dictate the movements of supposedly free people? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the parent post was correct. Two of the guys in my office are 3rd generation Americans; their great-grandparents were German immigrants. Both of them, growing up in different states, tell the same story: their grandparents learned to speak English because their great-grandparents beat the crap out of them if they heard them speaking German at home. The U.S.A. was their homeland now, and they would learn to be American. This wasn't something that resident Americans forced upon my coworkers' great-grandparents -- it was a choice they made willingly. I don't see that with illegal immigrants in the U.S.
I don't know if it's a difference in attitude or a difference in opportunity. I suspect that, being illegal immigrants and therefore fearing being discovered and deported, they might be considerably less inclined to send their kids to English-speaking schools or mingle with natural-born citizens, but I don't know that for a fact.
Why? What is wrong with telling someone, "look, it's your country...fight for it!" Every freedom in the world exists because someone somewhere decided it was a freedom worth fighting for.
Ummm...what planet are you from? Every country in the world restricts the liberty of free people who want to cross it. That is one of the essential functions of government -- to protect its borders. If I am a citizen of the U.S.A. (and I am), then it is only by the graces of Canada or Mexico or any other country of the world that I have permission to enter their country. Why should the U.S. border be any different? It shouldn't be unduly difficult to cross the border if, as you say, the person isn't a known criminal, but a government should by all means take reasonable steps to protect its borders.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no culture war with Hispanics in the US except in the collective imagination of the far-left/old-right alliance. Most of the issues (crime, poverty, welfare etc) are class-conflict issues that have nothing to do with culture. This is in sharp contrast to Moslem immigrants in Europe, where a clear Kulturkampf exists. last time I checked, Mexican immigrants don't engage in forced female circumcisions. honor killings, imam-sanctioned gang-rapes, mass-riots and supremacist terrorism. There was a 1 million strong Hispanic pro-immigration rally in the US just a few years ago, and not one drop of blood was spilled. Compare that with throngs of fanatic Moslems burning down France in the wake of the Mohamed cartoons...
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Interesting)
What sort of things does Sweden accept asylum for?
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.thelocal.se/7726/20070627/ [thelocal.se]
Dharmarajah says she was collected from the social services office by police officers.
"The police took me to the police station, allowed me to call some of my friends in the US, and then took me to a refugee camp in Märsta," she tells The Local.
The police officers then took Dharmarajah's passport.
"They explained to me that I was an asylum case, and that asylum cases can't keep their passports."
"It's crazy," she says. "I never wanted asylum in this country. I don't want to live here; I don't want to work here."
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-February/014125.html [utah.edu]
not have a job. Over 500,000 people are directly unemployed or are
in some sort of job education program. However that figure does not
give a true picture of reality. In fact in many of the larger cities
80% (!) of the non-Swede population do not have jobs. In fact
non-Swedes, procentually, are the overwhelming majority of unemployed,
those on welfare, or in job training.
I received a humanitarian asylum in Sweden because of my opposition
to the war in Vietnam.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4620167c-c3c9-11dc-b083-0000779fd2ac.html [ft.com]
In your extensive free time, head out to bars and tell the women you're a refugee from the US. Read up on how the Swedish media portrays the US and just feed the same stories back to them. They all speak perfect English. You'll get a Swedish girlfriend too! Of course, you're leaching off fundamentally decent and generous people, but don't let that put you off.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please, the idea that the UK is a hairs breadth from going Sharia is utter bullshit put out by the right-wing media to scare people.
The actual threat in this country comes from the far right whose rhetoric you are mouthing. The BNP, with financial support from certain people in America, managed to basically double their share of the vote each time over the past few elections. The Daily Wail and other such trash papers have got about 60% percentage of the British public believing in key BNP policy points.
Our main threat is not from angry young Muslims who wouldn't know an explosive device from a gas canister. The threat is from white youths who attack racial minorities converting that undirected anger into support of a fascist regime.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's all right then. No, of course there have never been any problems with terrorism in the UK before the eeeeevil Muslims came.
More types of "Illegal Data" (Score:5, Interesting)
Under-age porn, "terrorist" material, DRM removing software, MAFIAA products, etc...
they need to spread fear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fear is a common tactic used since the begging of civilization to manipulate people.
- Zeus will destroy you all!
- The devil will come for you and burn you for all eternity!
- Terrorists! omg! seek shelter at once!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:they need to spread fear... (Score:5, Funny)
That's right, Zeus.
Re:they need to spread fear... (Score:4, Insightful)
We were told repeatedly at the time that to change the way that we did things, to impose draconian measures, would be counter productive in that it would be seen as a success by the terrorists. The best thing that we could do would be to look out for anything suspicious but carry on our normal lives much the same as before.
What has changed? The IRA were a credible threat, carried out multiple attacks, but we didn't need huge changes in daily life or restrictions to freedom, to deal with them. Why do we need them now?
"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Any reports to the contrary are mistaken." - George Orwell, 1984.
Substitute 'The West' and 'Al Qaeda' and you have today's situation. The 'War on Terror' whilst a real, but insignificant threat, is as useful to the UK government as the war in 1984. It allows them to engender a climate of fear and get people to accept restrictions on liberties that would not otherwise be tolerated.
Re:they need to spread fear... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's changed is that the generation who remembered WWII weren't mostly dead or too old to care when the main IRA bombing campaigns were taking place, and they were (a) extremely difficult to intimidate because both they and their parents (the WWI generation) had experienced far worse things; and (b) extremely sensitive to anything that was too authoritarian because there were two living generations who'd paid an extremely high price to keep it out of their country.
And because most of those in the three main political parties in both houses also came from those two generations, they were likewise extremely suspicious of anyone who proposed authoritarian laws, so it would have been very difficult for anybody to get such things through parliament irrespective of whether they happened to be in government at the time.
"Why do we need them now?"
They aren't needed, but they're still passed by politicians and tolerated by the public (many of whom seem to welcome them) because people who haven't had to fight and die for their freedoms don't venerate them in the same way as those who paid the cost of preserving them against authoritarian regimes who wanted to take them away by force.
"The 'War on Terror' whilst a real, but insignificant threat, is as useful to the UK government as the war in 1984."
The difference of course being that George Orwell was writing in the 1940s, and therefore wasn't incapable of imagining that the British would turn into a bunch of whining pussies, so Eastasia was presented by the authoritarian government as being a gigantic power, not a few hundred loosely associated religious fanatics who killed far less people in all their operations combined than Britain lost on a single morning at The Somme in 1916.
Spread it around? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spread it around? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Spread it around? (Score:5, Funny)
1. To go to heaven you must be martyr
2. To be martyr you must blow yourself up
Handy hint for 2: Make sure to kill many infadel when blowing yourself up.
General hint: If you have attempted 2 and are reading this, you failed. Do not go to heaven. Do not collect 200 denar.
Re:Spread it around? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for reporting a dangerous terrorist to DHS. Unfortunately we are not allowed to torture US citizens at this point due to recent court cases and Presidential order [REDACTED]. Please waterboard yourself and post any information you find out out using the form at the site. By waterboarding yourself you consent to being waterboarded under Presidential orders [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
God Bless America,
autoresponder@dhs.gov
Please note that if you received this document in p
Re:Spread it around? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar [wikipedia.org]
True story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is basically the PG version of it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is NOTHING wrong with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Information hosted on a US government website? That is forbidden material? Entrapment anyone? How about err... uhhh... holy fuck!
So the UK government noticed this material being downloaded and never looked at where it came from? WTF? Is the US Government now hosting terrorism inciting materials for the internets?
This, I truly hope, leaves buckets full of egg and chicken shit on the faces of some government employee types.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well considering they're in the UK and getting it off a US site, entrapment would probably be a far stretch.
Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that Mr AC doesn't remember that other 'terrorist' attack in the US. Down in Oklahoma? Memory getting better? There is very little reason to think that a Muslim is more likely than a white to create an act of great violence inside the US borders... school shootings anyone? Kent state? There are lots of examples. My how the black man cheered when the DC snipers turned out to be black... their first notable serial mass murderer. Up till then, all mass murderers were expected to be white.
How many Muslims are in the world?
Of that, 25 or so have attacked US citizens. Lets be generous and say 50 have attacked western countries. That amounts to... uhmmmm about 3.1047801194719389972802126153426e-6 percent of the Muslim population seems to be hell bent on knocking down buildings. The rest are trying to survive where they are. That, by the way, is a huge bunch of non-violent Muslims. Racial profiling does seem to make sense on face value, but dig a bit deeper and you find that the risk of violence from not invading privacy and personal rights is smaller than
I don't care if you are afraid of shadows, diminishing MY rights because of your irrational fears is still wrong, will always be wrong, and always has been WRONG.
Thanks for playing
Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this (Score:4, Funny)
Holy crap, have you never heard of significant digits?!?
Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this (Score:5, Interesting)
No, those groups seem to prefer acts of genocide accomplished with organized armies. Much more civil, clearly. And much more peaceful, too. Oh, how much those savage Muslims have yet to learn.
And how do we define a terror attack? Is it when you cluster bomb urban areas? Is it dropping nuclear bombs? Supporting brutal paramilitaries? Blockading food and medicine transports?
In fact, why only count terror attacks? Surely all violent attacks should be tallied to see which religion produces most violence in this world.
What do you reckon the results would look like then?
Yes there is (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, that's a bit convenient a definition.
But the fact is, the western world too has a long and funny history of targetting civilians explicitly. The terror bombings of WW2 (started, duly noted by Germany, but continued by the Allies just as well) were probably the best example, though more recent examples do exist. The theory was explictly to kill enough civilians, as to (A) cause a huge morale drop and make them beg their government for peace, and (B) cripple the economy by killing enough of the workforrce.
The industrial cities of Germany for example have not been colateral damage in trying to bomb the factories, they have been the targets themselves. That was the actual target: bombing the city and terrorizing the population. (But again, so did Germany with UK cities, so I'm not trying to make it sound like only one side was doing it.)
The whole doctrine and technique of firebombing them didn't even work against factories. How it worked was dropping a big bomb with an otherwise thin shell, so the blast would blow the shingles off house roofs, followed by lots of little fire bombs that would then fall in the house and set it ablaze. The houses of civilians were _the_ target.
Against factories that particular mix had little to no effect. Against troops or military targets that mix would have been outright stupid, and noone used it for that.
Again, the whole doctrine was to kill as many civilians as your can, and scare the seven shades of shit out of the survivors. That's a terror tactic by any other name.
Want another example: the USA has actively researched biological warfare and had stockpiles of nasty germs until the 70's. I do believe that the doctrine wasn't to drop them just on enemy troops.
The west only gave up on that shit, when we finally figured out that nukes are enough of a deterrent anyway, and killing 3% of a city's population with modified Brucellosis is peanuts compared to nuking it. And again, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction isn't about nuking enemy troops. If you look at any country with nukes, right as we write this, the nukes are aimed at the (potential) enemies' civilian cities. The threat is, very much, "if you dare attack us, we'll wipe out your population and turn your country into a radioactive wasteland."
The neutron bomb was developed for the explicit reason of killing or injuring as many humans as possible, while causing as little damage as possible to everything else. It's not a bomb you'd use to disable a military factory, it's a bomb which would kill its workers (and the whole city nearby) and at most blow the windows off that factory.
Etc.
So, you know, freakin' _please_. I'm even willing to swallow _some_ "us vs them" dehumanizing arguments, but "we wouldn't ever target civilians" is so much bullshit it could fertilize a few acres.
Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this (Score:5, Insightful)
As an atheist, I am a little disturbed how you said:
Is this supposed to imply you'd EXPECT such behaviour from those of us with no belief in a higher power?! Or even consider it to be more likely?
Atheists are, in general, far LESS likely to tend towards extreme terrorist acts than religious people, for the simple fact that we are pretty well convinced that when we die it's GAME OVER - no afterlife - NOTHING is worth dying for. Plus of course, we are in general a more intelligent bunch (on the average... there are smart religious people, and dumb atheists, but averaged out, we're smarter) and fully realise that any kind of behaviour like this is pretty likely to get us killed, even if it's not a suicide attack specifically.
You weren't in Northern Ireland a decade or two back were you?
I consider most religions to be very dangerous things that can lead people to doing horrible things, but I don't consider Islam to be any more dangerous than Christianity. The religious texts are very similar (in fact, a lot of the religious texts are the same) and the standard teachings of peace and love are also identical. If you go to an average Islamic religious service, you'll hear exactly the same things being preached to the people there as if you went to an average Christian one. You could cherry pick and find an extremist Islamic teacher, and the same could be done for Christianity.
Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly, I see this argument all the time from religious folk, but have never met another atheist that would agree with this. This really seems to be the "religious person's view of the atheist mind" rather than the actual "atheist mind".
I am an atheist, and I don't want to die. The fact that there's no "judgement" doesn't comfort me in the least! I fully intend to live as long as I possibly can, and have as happy a life as I can during that time.
I believe the argument about there being no "judgement" allowing an atheist to do whatever he wants (including be very evil) fails to account for the fact that there's also no GOOD REASON to be very evil. Religious folk can say, "I did it because my deity commanded it" or similar. Atheists don't have that. So, the only reason to do bad things is to gain power. And most of us are clever enough to realise that this generally doesn't work. (note: MOST, not all - there have been some pretty nasty atheists in history, but that's because they're nasty PEOPLE, not because they're atheists)
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.. (Score:5, Funny)
I got curious once and looked up how to make a hydrogen bomb. Does that make me a terrorist? NO. Because I only use my hydrogen bomb for personal self-defense!
Re:Guns don't kill people; people kill people.. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of her good friends who was, I believe, reading for Physics, did his senior thesis on how to make a nuclear weapon. I also believe, though I'm not clear as its been a while since she told me this story, that the fellow in question was not exactly American.
His thesis brought him to the interest of some of the old-line type of "terrorist" organizations like the PFLP. *THAT* brought him to the attention of the FBI and he was arrested and interrogated.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Immigrant. (Score:5, Interesting)
#1 Arrest under Terrorism act for having al-Qaida-related material.
#2 Immigration charges and subsequent deportation.
The two are related insofar as discovering 1 resulted in 2.
#2, the illegal immigration, *should* result in deportation - he is perfectly able to make a claim on humanitarian grounds or claim asylum. The fact remains that illegal immigrants should be deported.
#1 should be approached as:
a) person found with dodgy material
b) person was investigated
c) things happen
Now, the main objection is vs c). he was engaging in legitimate academic research (you COULD argue he is a terrorist and this is a clever coverup, but I wont go there
The fact that "An illegal immigrate faces deportation" is no surprise and should not impact your judgement here.
This probably comes acros as a bit confused - its been a long day.
Re:Immigrant. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the guy is "Facing Imminent Deportation Without Hearing" and that's the real issue here. Looks like the police just wants him swept under the rug. As reported, he has a visa, but there are questions: due to confusion over his visa documentation, charged with offences relating to his immigration status. He sought legal advice and representation regarding these matters whilst in custody. On Friday 23rd May, the Home Office informed his solicitor that he was being removed on Sunday 1st June and Hicham was moved to an immigration detention centre. Now, is it reasonable to deport someone (who lived in the country for 13 years) within only 7 days, without proper court hearings, presentation of witnesses, debates about the applicable law? The Home Office just wants him out, and with him being out there will be no hearings, and no inconvenient truth will come out. But until his status is investigated, and his lawyers can speak for him and argue his status, we can not say that he is legal or illegal immigrant. That is to be determined, and the fight is for his right to be heard in court, and his status determined by the judge - not by a bureaucrat.
Re:Immigrant. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Immigrant. (Score:5, Informative)
And what is that reason? Seriously, have you ever had to carry a Green Card? Because I have. For years I was told that anytime I left the country I could be denied entry for just about any reason, owing to the fact that I was really only allowed to stay here at the pleasure of Uncle Sam. Then I had to spend thousands of dollars and be fingerprinted, photographed, investigated, and grilled by examiners before I could become a U.S. citizen. What did you ever have to do to earn the right to come and go as you please, or to vote? What makes you better than me?
The whole business is nonsense. And when you hear firsthand stories of people whose families were broken up by ridiculous immigration policies enforced by xenophobic zealots in the name of "patriotism," or "protecting our jobs," or "failure to learn our language," or whatever the excuse is this week, the situation starts to look considerably less cut-and-dried than you make it out to be.
True, there are "perfectly legal" ways to get into a country, just like there are "perfectly legal" was to buy a Ferrari, or run for President. That doesn't mean those options are open to everybody. Plus, the mere fact that this guy is pursuing an advanced degree at university should be proof enough that the "stealing our jobs" excuse doesn't apply in this case. Your kneejerk obeisance to immigration policy on the mere basis that "it's policy, ergo we follow it" is just another way of distracting attention from your own need to protect your position of privilege.
s/freedom/security/g (Score:4, Insightful)
Another line a long line of insults (Score:3, Insightful)
The quotations of American and British patriots that warn that liberty at the cost of security is folly are now sadly worn out. My British friends have less hope because they believe that Tory and Labor, just like Democrats and Republicans, are largely the same. This is a dangerous time in the world for people not to believe in the integrity and veracity of their governments; more is at stake in interdependency than ever before. I hope, no pray, they listen to their constituents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another line a long line of insults (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, they didn't say it was a competently planned war for oil.
Re:Another line a long line of insults (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another line a long line of insults (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another line a long line of insults (Score:5, Interesting)
It was about oil. No tin foil hat. Oil. It wasn't about Saddam. He had a fat mouth that got him lynched. Yes, he was a murderous SOB but then there are loads of them around and we don't do even a fraction of them justice.
And the plan backfired. A commodities market has grasped the weakness of the currency and the high demand, and they now are poised to raise oil until it's at the blood-letting levels, where they'll back off and ride the profits until 'something happens' to deflate the market. In the interim, the economies of the middle east, Venezuela, and Mexico (although Mexico can't capitalize assets to reduce their bleeding) are pretty much glowing with petro-currencies, largely worthless dollars.
If we were going to halt terrorism, we should have targeted the perps in the 9/11 fiasco, and dealt with them. We have not, only serving as poster boy enemies for recruiters of psycho-jihadis. And the rest of Islam looks at us, like the rest of the world, like we must be insane. Indeed our gutless leadership is just that. It takes guts to admit you're wrong, and they'll never do it. This while deficit spending is far out of control, the Fed inflates the currency instead of forcing banks/derivative holders to take a bath, and the average Joe and his grandchildren go broke.
Oddly, we don't have cameras watching our every move, and have at least a modicum of academic freedom, contrasting with the poor researchers in TFA in the UK.
Re:Another line a long line of insults (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK and in the EU, the price of fuel is far higher. Still, mass transportation and dealing with the high price is assuaged by decades of astute planning. Instead, we in the US have been spending money on airports without thought to what might happen if air travel wasn't quite as cost-effective sometime in the future. And we've built endless strip malls designed around people with cheap fuel to burn to get to them, rather then neighborhood-focused, easily/cheaply accessible shops.
Oil was bound to skyrocket at some point, but in the US, our preparation for such disasters is very poor; look at Katrina and how the fabric of a vibrant economy went to hell in just six hours, lasting until who knows when?
Re:Another line a long line of insults (Score:5, Informative)
OK, I'll bite. Here is the 1998 letter sent to President Clinton [zfacts.com] urging the removal of Saddam Hussein. Check out the second paragraph:
Three years before 9/11 occurred Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were pushing to topple Saddam Hussein to protect the oil supply. WMDs are mentioned, but the primary context is stability in the Middle East and access to oil.
So yes, bad intelligence played a part. If there wasn't oil involved, I doubt the US would have used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Do you really think these guys care about "our moderate Arab allies" and Israel?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Terror (Score:5, Insightful)
Got another! (Score:4, Informative)
University admin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
You can view video clips of Tony Blair and CIA officials basically stating that Al Qaeda doesn't exist on You Tube (IIRC from the BBC originally).
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html [polidics.com]
Maybe they are trying to stop people from researching this stuff.
BBC (Score:5, Informative)
Two details should be considered before judging the situation and blaming random people:
This is a gross mistake anyway, but it's a quite a bit less 1984-ish than one might think from the summary.
Similar incident on tv show numb3rs. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have little doubt that this episode was inspired by the whole national security climate which silences research all the time.
An alternative approach to change? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why aren't we actively protesting to those people? These people are responsible for their actions and are responsible for acting on their own conscience. It's easy to show that various campaigns to influence government policy and direction even in small degrees.
How possible might it be to influence the arms and legs of bad government to refuse to act against its conscience?
Sounds like Baldrick has a cunning plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Pete Townsend defense, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here is proof they are not terrorists: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we (the U.S.) did invade a foreign country, kill their leader and throw it into violent chaos. Sounds like terrorism to me. Maybe those UK folks are onto something.
Re:What is the definition of terrorist anyway (Score:4, Informative)
(A month later that college received the largest single individual donation of any college in state history. Evil has it's rewards.)