Terrorise non-believers calls Quatada.

Very rarely is something like this truly the fault of only one side.
We screwed up a lot. You're right. We let the extremists have a voice and we ignored all the moderates because we didn't understand what they were saying. We only understood bullets, high explosives and hostage takings.
 
^^^ You get my vote for seeing through the spin^^^

You may not be 100% correct but you're close enough.

I'm sorry, I know this won't please a lot of people, "but let's forget the politically induced hype and start looking at the facts".
 
Not just the politicians but I feel the Press is also seriously guilty party. By bringing the extremists to the forefront, they made it almost impossible for our authorities to not deal with them which in turn legitimized the extremists.
 
at NO POINT we can give up our freedom of press/ speech. The Mohammed- caricatures may have been provocative but it was only used to legitimize aggressive action again (the caricatures were already some years old by then). Even if Extremists can't cope with it- we allow people to say what they think and so does the Islam (Koran) in theory. We cannot fight a thread by betraying our central principles that would start our own dextruction. And the loss of traditional values is already great enough ;)
Think i missed the point there but i wanted to say that ;)
 
Here you are guys, just a reminder of the originating thread topic post:-


Suspected Al Qaeda leader Abu Qatada is celebrating his release from prison with the release of a book in which he urges Muslims to commit terrorist attacks in the West.
In the 71-page tract, published in English translation on the internet, he repeatedly claims that fighting jihad, holy war, is obligatory for all Muslims and urges them to 'terrorise' non-believers.
Security sources say his clear incitement to violence makes a mockery of the decision to set him free.
The preacher of hate, who has been described as Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, was released on bail from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire on Tuesday after the blocking of his deportation to Jordan, where he is wanted on terror charges
The revelations are likely to prompt demands for a new investigation into whether Qatada should be charged with inciting murder and racial hatred.
A senior security source said: 'The contents of the book are an affront to all decent people. By publishing it now, Qatada and his supporters are giving the two-fingered salute to the criminal justice system.'
Referring to supporters of democracy, Qatada proclaims in his book that 'rising up against them with weapons and with force is an individual obligation upon every Muslim'.
He says Muslims should ' prepare to terrorise the enemies of Allah and incite believers to fight'.
Twenty-stone Qatada arrived in Britain 14 years ago on a forged passport and was granted asylum the following year.
 
ObjSRgtLw said:
at NO POINT we can give up our freedom of press/ speech. The Mohammed- caricatures may have been provocative but it was only used to legitimize aggressive action again (the caricatures were already some years old by then). Even if Extremists can't cope with it- we allow people to say what they think and so does the Islam (Koran) in theory. We cannot fight a thread by betraying our central principles that would start our own dextruction. And the loss of traditional values is already great enough ;)
Think i missed the point there but i wanted to say that ;)
Click to expand...

No arguments here.
 
I agree with it in principle but what about cases where you have actively pro-enemy groups (not political parties but actual hostile entities such as Al Qaeda and North Korea) conducting information warfare on your soil, recruiting spies and potential saboteurs, organizing meetings where motivations and techniques of subverting the current country (not political party but the country) are discussed?
You are simply giving the enemy's intelligence service a blank check.
That's the one nagging issue.
 
That's what the FBI and Department of Homeland Security etc., are for. To enforce security on US soil, and generally speaking they have done a reasonable job of it to date. Not always, but they do have some pretty good runs on the board.


the_13th_redneck said:
I agree with it in principle but what about cases where you have actively pro-enemy groups (not political parties but actual hostile entities such as Al Qaeda and North Korea) conducting information warfare on your soil, recruiting spies and potential saboteurs, organizing meetings where motivations and techniques of subverting the current country (not political party but the country) are discussed?
You are simply giving the enemy's intelligence service a blank check.
That's the one nagging issue.
Click to expand...
 
Yes but where do we draw the line as to what is freedom of speech and what is an act of aggression? People fail to realize that sometimes the pen is a mightier weapon than a sword.
I guess this is where discretion comes in.
 
I would like to think so.

Someone once said, "It is not possible to legislate for common sense" Impyling that it is one of the few things that should be left upto the community.
 
I would just interrupt to say publically that when this thread was blocked I was unable to post that in retrospect, within my post, I feel that I should not have invited MontyB to shut up, and I that I withdrew that statement directly to him. Just for the record you understand.
 
Last edited:
Common sense, responsibility, accountability have all taken a hike and have been replaced by confusing laws that contradict each other and have turned it into a who can afford the best lawyer for longer slug fest.
 
senojekips said:
That's what the FBI and Department of Homeland Security etc., are for. To enforce security on US soil, and generally speaking they have done a reasonable job of it to date. Not always, but they do have some pretty good runs on the board.
Click to expand...

Though i believe the F.B.I. is a responsible agency and do basically good work which the American population wants and will support to a great degree, The homeland security apperatus is a joke. Thats just what a democratic nation needs. A new agency with the power to wiretap, arrest without proper cause and send suspects to secret military instillations where they will probably be tortured to extract whatever the government wants to hear. This is not democracy. Let us call it by its right name. Fascism.... Thank God for the Obama win. Mr. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and a few others have much to answer for.
And for the record, though I am a Canadian and may not understand the American political system like a native of that country, whenever this type of totalitarian institution is installed , I am appalled.
 
Last edited:
Come on guys, you have to be more realistic...

These laws that protect this guy are very good. Not because they saved this man from justice, but to protect every human being who will be judged in the future...

He is not dangerous right now, he is under the control of the law. He wont hurt anyone.
If we condemn him or shoot him, he will be the martyr, falling fighting a much stronger enemy... If we catch him and let him "free" (under control) we wont be the bad guys...

If we had proofs that he killed someon, he would be in jail now...

Anyway, we have to keep an eye on this fella, and maybe use him to foil more terrorists attacks or just to capture some terrorists on the field...
 
Something that should give us peace of mind on this fellow and his organisation, to some extent at least, is that you can't tell me MI5 and CIA are not watching and listening and have the technology and means to stop anything crimminal that these blighters might try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top