Slashdot Mirror


In the UK, Possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook Is Terrorism

Anonymous Terrorist writes "Back in the midsts of time, when I was a lad and gopher was the height of information retrieval I read The Anarchist's Cookbook in one huge text file. Now it appears the UK government considers possession of the book an offense under the Terrorism Act 2000 and is prosecuting a 17 year old boy, in part, for having a copy of the book. 'The teenager faces two charges under the Terrorism Act 2000. The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year. The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.'"

602 comments

  1. Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...who are the terrorists?

    1. Re:Remind me... by Twisted64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whoever they are, you may sleep safely in your beds. Terrorists are not in charge of Gundam.

      --
      Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    2. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch and you'll find the answer:

      http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

    3. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know who they are, but they are winning. The world lives in fear of backpacks and books.

    4. Re:Remind me... by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      No, the world lives in fear of backpacks carried by men who mutter "Allah Akbar!" judt before the set off the explosives in it.

      Having said that, the Anarchist's Cookbook is really a lousy manual. My Infantry Officer Basic Course offered much better formulas for explosives.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    5. Re:Remind me... by ericartman · · Score: 1

      So if you can get all the info thats in the cookbook online, is possession of a computer a terrorist act in Britain?

      Cart

    6. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you can get all the info thats in the cookbook online, is possession of a computer a terrorist act in Britain?

      So if shooting a random stranger dead is murder in the US, is it illegal to own a firearm there?

    7. Re:Remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the books! All books!! Burn them all!!!

  2. Queue the outraged moderates.. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Watch as some people get upset about this but still go on to say why we need to "prevent" terrorism and other crimes.

    Watch as they call me an extremist for suggesting that crime prevention is an absurd attempt to trade freedom for security and will *never* work.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by mikey_boy · · Score: 1

      I think you mean cue ;-)

    2. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did, but I also want them to line up! Against the wall!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Deag · · Score: 1

      I think you have the wrong forum for that.

    4. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Publicly stripped and cavity searched, after all they don't have anything to hide and therefore shouldn't mind. Better take samples of bodily fluids just to be safe. Anybody got a clean needle? Tell them sorry, no, can't have their clothes back, might strangle someone with them. Hey, check this out Bubba, this one got a double barreled slingshot. Let us check their garages too, never know they might have laundry detergent and gasoline stored in them, you can make a version of homemade napalm with those. Call them liars when they say it's just there for mowing the yard and doing laundry. /sarcasm off

    5. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, we just call you and idiot, sir!

    6. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Watch as they call me an extremist for suggesting that crime prevention is an absurd attempt to trade freedom for security and will *never* work.
      Like many things in life, it isn't that simple. Saying crime prevention will never work is far too glib. I lock my car doors to prevent the crime of grand theft auto, and so far my car hasn't been stolen.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    7. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      Queue the mind police as we bring you in to implant a chip to control your thoughts.

      We will quell any and all seditious thoughts as well as clamp down on violent outbursts. All sports in general will be banned as they have the potentil to lead to violent outbursts and riots depending on the emotional impact of a particular game.
      Males and females will be separated for the public good as they cannot be trusted to get together without the occasional fight, which leads to violence, which we all know leads to terrorism right?

      Get the idea? Any of these *modest* restrictions are just stepping stones to the end of humanity. God (pick your favorite) gave us the ability to exercise free-will. We also received 10 commandments which work fairly well as a guideline on how to live.

      Most laws today say "You cannot do this. You cannot do that." They take away free-will.

      Why would studying any topic, learning any knowledge be akin to terrorism? Just because it could be used that way? Well shit, we'd better put down all military personel as they leave the service because they've got knowledge that could be used for terrorist acts. Police officers had best be put-down when they retire or quit, as they've got knowledge that could be used for terrorist acts.

      See what I mean? It's crazy. Free will determines who and what will be used for terrorism. Knowledge by itself isn't evil. No amount of information can effer become a malicious individual in it's own right.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    8. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      Ugh - getting riled up and spelling do not mix... effer? ever sheesh... =D

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    9. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Retric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reduce is not the same as Prevent. By locking car doors you can help reduce the amount of grand theft auto but as people can and will steal cars with locked doors it's a reduction.

      Lock all the doors you want there will still be theft.
      Make any drug you want illegal there will still be some users.
      Trade all the freedom you want there will still be terrorism.

      Anyway, it's all smoke and mirrors cars kill far more people than terrorist's and most people don't seem to care that much. IMO the reason people care has more to due with movies than any real threat. IMO the fastest way to render them meaningless is to ignore them. (Aka remove them from political speeches, TV, video games, and movies.)

      The goal should be to balance risks and the effort you expend reducing them. You should not assume any one solution is going to work all the time.

      PS: The same thing happens in software. Most programmers assume RAM is going to work etc but sometimes that machine calculates 2+2 and gives you 18.

    10. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we'd better get used to terrorism because I suspect we're going to see more and more of it.

      Governments and police forces around the world are getting access to ever more effective methods for non violently controlling crowds and neutralising protests. These methods include simply more active policing - photography, stopping people before they reach the main area of protest and the more hi tech things in development - heat rays etc.

      I think this will lead to a situation where one of the main pillars of the generally effective method of overthrowing regimes, mass public protest and rioting, will become less and less viable which will cause any sensible would be rioters to turn immediately to terrorism.

    11. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Hatta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Neither god nor free will exist.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I think your anectode is pretty useless. Park your car in the Bronx, with doors locked, and see if they prevent your car from being stolen.

    13. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      We also received 10 commandments which work fairly well as a guideline on how to live.
      Actually, they don't. In the original form, they're incredibly simplistic if you look at actual law with all its exceptions, pitfalls and in-case-ofs. Furthermore, they differ per holy book. Furthermore, the "you shall only worship one god" doesn't really mesh with the free will stuff. But, I assume you were thinking primarily of "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal" ;).
    14. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reduce is not the same as Prevent.


      When you Reduce, you've Prevented some. Maybe that's not as good as Preventing all, but just becuase Preventing all isn't a reachable goal doesn't mean that Preventing some is worthless.

      Chris Mattern
    15. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by babyrat · · Score: 1

      I lock my car doors to prevent the crime of grand theft auto, and so far my car hasn't been stolen.

      Yet I generally don't lock my car door to prevent 'grand window breaking' in the act of grand theft auto, and so far my car hasn't been stolen, nor have my windows been broken.

    16. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See now, this is just playing with words. Lingual masturbation? anyhow...

      I can definitely 100% guarantee this ship is unsinkable in most circumstances. GP is correct - REDUCE != PREVENT. You're using them in a different context and trying to equate the meanings.

      You can reduce the incidence of *all* GTA but you can not prevent *all* GTA.

      You can prevent a *portion* of GTA by locking your car doors.

      And finally, do you think that locking your car doors really prevents you car from being stolen? Locks, keys, alarms, etc. serve to prevent CASUAL or PETTY crime (swiping the change from your ash tray or the leather jacket in your back seat). Any serious criminal that wants to steal your new mercedes is going to. The key, engine kill, alarm, remote starter, and on-star will prevent a joyride. But a professional simply pops the hood and cuts out the battery and then flat-beds the car to a chop shop.

      Same thing with terrorism. You're going to spend trillions of dollars and hurt millions of people preventing negligable crimes (compared to say, homicide) while the "real" terrorists will still likely accomplish whatever they set out to.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    17. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      It is worthless if you have no way to quantify the number of prevented thefts. Reduce is a better word and is not misleading. Locking a car door will not prevent a theft from a determined criminal as they will just smash the window. The crime of opportunity will be smaller which is why the word reduce is more honest and straight forward. I will say it's not easy to quantify either phrasing. In both uses you only have the ends to justify your means which isn't enough information especially when you extend this discussion to include terrorism.

    18. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by kb0hae · · Score: 0

      So who need that document? Any intelligent person who thought about it a bit could probably figure out how to build a pipe bomb. Just a hint...black powder, a pipe with 2 caps, a model rocket igniter...
      I have never tried this (or tred to make any other kind of bomb or explosive device).

      I am sure in the U.K. that the military trains at least some of their soldiers how to improvise weapons/explosives etc...are they going to arrest those soldiers?, Sue the military for training terrorists?

      If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons? Speaking of morons, Rush Limbaugh: Toxic byproduct of the first ammendment.

    19. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I've always heard that most of the stuff in this cookbook is crap, so what's the problem if some nutcase wastes his time & resources?

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    20. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it should be legal to kill vegetarians, so long as you intend to eat them.

      just try it, fucker. i'll cut your balls off.

    21. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you have the strength to pick up a knife - let alone use to cut balls (or anything else) off. go munch on some grass and farting your nasty-ass farts you militant cabbage head.

    22. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by stonertom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we'd better get used to terrorism because I suspect we're going to see more and more of it. IMHO we are now seeing more terrorism than ever before, from Wiktionary:
      1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
      2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
      3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.
      I draw your attention to (3). TBH, I can barely remember the time or place to hit Europe, but I can clearly see the response every day. Extra police at every turn, increasing armed (dunno what you guys in the States think of this, but it freaks me out). When I was a kid, there was a lot of talk about the IRA, and I remember town centers being closed because of bomb scares, but the IRA did not dominate national policy the way "Al Qaeda" does now. Shame really, I used to read /. thinking "those crazy yanks, glad I'm not stuck in your country", now I'm not so sure.
      --
      Shameless plugs and inaccessible site design FTW! - www.mistletoestreetmusic.com
    23. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch as they call me an extremist for suggesting that this terrorist law is an absurd attempt to trade freedom for security and will *never* work.
      --
      OP all fixed. Satisfied? What he said is still true.
      "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
      -Benjamin Franklin

      It's just as true today as it was over 200 years ago.

      Making books illegal was one of the first steps toward the third reich and a process that Hitler thought was a great idea. We all know where that went... Part of freedom is being able to possess and read any book you like. Doing something bad with the information should be a crime, not possessing it.

      It doesn't solve the security problem they are trying to solve. Real terrorists will still always know how to make a bomb. They go to training for it. Outlaw this book and you aren't doing squat to prevent bombings. A determined individual will always find a way.

      Now the UK, and especially this kid, has lost freedom, and the UK is no more secure for it. Franklin's words still hold water. You think real terrorists need this book? You are kidding yourself.

      The UK has started down a path toward a totalitarian society from which it will never recover. And just as in George Orwell's 1984, they've used fear of "the enemy" to take the freedom away. First it will come in small chunks like this. As people get used to the idea there will be more and more banned information until you'll wake up and be living the Orwellian nightmare, fed only the information the government allows you to see.

      By using the same logic they did when they created this law, you could easily justify killing the internet completely from the UK. You can use it to look up instructions on how to make a bomb right? What's the difference? From there you need to also burn all the chemistry books in the land since anyone that understands how to solve chemical reactions can also create a bomb. Burn all the biology texts as well, especially the ones concerning genetics, bacteria and viruses.

      Nitpicking QuantumG doesn't change the fact that he's right. If you ban all information the government thinks is no good, only criminals will have it. Aren't they the ones we're trying to keep from getting the info with these idiotic laws? They didn't work 200 years ago, they don't now, and they never will.

      -AC

    24. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      Well, that's your opinion, I think it stinks, but it's all yours and you are entitled to it.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    25. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by stonertom · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's probably bad manners to reply to yourself, but I was in the mood for some stats (BTW, if anyone has a well researched article RE: number of people killed by terrorism vs. number killed by fighting it vs. number who's lives have radically changed, that'd be interesting)
      Anyway, statistics fury: It's good this saving people's lives and freeing them thing isn't it? L8r
      --
      Shameless plugs and inaccessible site design FTW! - www.mistletoestreetmusic.com
    26. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by manifoldronin · · Score: 1

      But just because Preventing some is not worthless doesn't mean that it is worth "it", it being the price we pay in freedom. That as far as I read was the GGGP's point.

      --
      Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
    27. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by bram · · Score: 1

      Actually, vegetarians have more stamina than carnivores.

      At least that's what I heard. :P

      --
      People using html in email should be shot.
    28. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Your neighbor might get hit with some of the shrapnel after the instructions lead you to collect a bunch of volatile chemicals and mix some into unstable explosives?

      Some hospital worker might be traumatized when they see what you managed to do to your face and your arms below the elbows?

      Arson is a crime, even when you're some stupid teenager who thinks mixing potassium chlorate and sulfuric acid is a good idea because some text file told him to?

      Pick one, or make your own.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    29. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that pesky lock. The bane of all car thieves!

      I have a tiger-deterrent rock to keep away tigers. I haven't been attacked by a tiger yet.

    30. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by |/|/||| · · Score: 1

      Stinky or not, I don't see any evidence for either existing.

      That said, I think we humans are all a lot happier pretending that free will exists, and I think that our laws and social mores should assume freedom of individuality/lifestyle/privacy/etc (taking the golden rule into account, of course).

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    31. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Kyojin · · Score: 1

      I know of 3 people who have left their car doors unlocked, and still had their windows smashed. Go figure.

    32. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by G-funk · · Score: 1

      +10 Insightful

      Of course that's exactly the point. If people who disagree with you can't organize, can't rally, and can't get on TV, you can get away with an awful lot while in power :(

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    33. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I lock my car doors to prevent the crime of grand theft auto, and so far my car hasn't been stolen.
      I challenge you to prove/demonstrate/argue that your car *would* have been stolen if you'd left the doors open.
    34. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It's just world-wide teething pains as we move from a hierarchy/tree of control/domination to a network of reciprocal moderation. As those who previously had been on the lower layers become more intelligent and informed, it will become more and more difficult to force them to submit and indeed, why should they? Why not have them participate rather than obey? You can see this happening in the consumerist arena too (e.g. p2p as a method of freeing themselves from what they see as exploitation.) The only sensible, long-term solution is to stop trying to suppress people and start figuring-out how we can all get along. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions so clearly I'm a misguided l00n.. :D

    35. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Stinky or not, I don't see any evidence for either existing.
      Clearly, you're some kind of doubting thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas) / [insert other meme used to encourage blind faith, from other religions] :P
    36. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      bad metaphor.

      it's his car; so long as he doesn't lock my car or mess with my l33t bomb making .arc files from 1993 then that's fine.

    37. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by asuffield · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think we'd better get used to terrorism because I suspect we're going to see more and more of it.


      More than what?

      Every time I see this (from either side), I immediately think: here's somebody who is not learning from history.

      Terrorism is not on the rise. There is not more terrorism now than there was fifty or a hundred years ago. Terrorism is not something that other people do and we do not do. Your school history teacher may have focussed on more positive aspects of our history, but that doesn't mean the other bits did not exist.

      Terrorism has always been prevalent. It has always been the tool of those who lack other means to accomplish their goals. "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" have always been just two more names for "them" and "us". It is not on the rise because it has always existed at a "high" level (actually pretty low compared to, for example, deaths due to police/government corruption and abuses).

      As long as any country has enemies and those enemies have no armies or nukes, that country will be the target of terrorist attacks.

      Remind me again why we need to have less freedom today than we did ten years ago? It certainly isn't because the terrorists have changed.
    38. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, check this out Bubba..."

      How your remarks became ranked as "interesting" is beyond me. Most "Bubbas" I know hold close the rights of people to "keep and bear arms". That includes possessing the knowledge to responsibly manufacture tools for the aforementioned purpose. I may agree with your sarcasm, but please try to get out more. Not all rednecks are out to destroy "your" life ("Not all" being the operative phrase).

    39. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get out more too, then you mind find that "Bubba" isn't necessarily a redneck. For that matter, just for example purposes, while there is plenty of good ole boys around there always seems to be not so good ones around.

      Offtopic a bit but there was a game warden known as Bubba some years back, he worked hard trying to catch some old boys that shot deer or whatever they could get regardless of season cause their families were hungry. On an anonymous tip the sheriff's department found him barbwired to a tree, naked as a jay bird. They arrested him for indecent exposure and the district judge found him guilty of it, that is how well loved he was in those parts. They say he moved to another state and took up preaching after that.

    40. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 1

      Their fallacy starts, I believe, with confusing crime prevention with crime deterrence. Deterrence is what punishment for criminal activity, or the perceived possibility of criminal activity in this case, provides. If someone really wants to steal, destroy, or kill, no amount of deterrence short of death for them and all of their relations will prevent them from committing the crime. And even that may not be punishment enough to stop the person.

      So we move toward a less free state of mind, letting everything we do be monitored and archived, letting the act of possessing items that may be used to commit crimes become a crime, because this avoids the hard question of how to prevent crime and acts of war. I see this same laziness everywhere, from at work where people will reboot or reimage a PC rather than read a couple logs and correct the true problem to the policies of nearly all nations.

      Until we have figured out how to really prevent crime, we will repeat our past histories

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
    41. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by wideglide · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      But the cynical part of this is : I was trained (together with several others) in independent combat in unknown surroundings using improvised weapons and strange techniques ... So our government trained their own citizens to be terrorists ! I wonder if we are suddenly rounded up and disappear ...

      It's always the fanatics which are dangerous.

      --
      The sum of intelligence on a planet is constant. Nowadays we have more people. When classic goes away, so do I. Copy
    42. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by redcane · · Score: 1

      Unless you are planning on buying high school science, you can't remove the threat of someone creating shrapnel by mixing a bunch of volatile chemicals..... Where did the anarchists cookbook come from? Just because the anarchist cookbook is a convenient source of the same information doesn't make it any more dangerous than the science text books it was built out of.

    43. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by mpe · · Score: 1

      As long as any country has enemies and those enemies have no armies or nukes, that country will be the target of terrorist attacks.

      It isn't even that simple. There are plenty of examples of nation states which do have armies enguaging in (and supporting) terrorist attacks. Terrorists directly attached to armies are typically called "special forces" or "commandos". Goverments also frequently support terrorists for reasons of "plausible denyability", rather unsuprisingly it's the richest and most militarily powerful governments most likely to do this.

    44. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by mpe · · Score: 1

      I am sure in the U.K. that the military trains at least some of their soldiers how to improvise weapons/explosives etc...are they going to arrest those soldiers?

      They may well not all be "soldiers". The "Dad's Army" element of the WWII "Home Guard" was partly cover for training people to resist a German invasion. Such things undoubtely continued throughout the "cold war" as well as being relevent to Allied support of the French Resistance.

    45. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Because the Anarchist's Cookbook and its kin (Jolly Roger's Cookbook, etc.) present these things as recipes, and make no mention of the fact that following these recipes have a great chance of costing you your hand. Textbooks provide all the necessary information, but in a format that requires some understanding of the information. Someone who has the necessary understanding to be able to mix up some nitroglycerin from a science textbook will generally know not to drop it.

      The various Cookbooks are the chemistry equivalent of the hacking tools a script kiddie might use, imparting recipes rather than information and understanding. When that happens with chemistry, hospital bills accrue.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    46. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know of 3 people who have left their car doors unlocked, and still had their windows smashed. Go figure.
      No, that makes sense: if a typical impulse car thief sees the radio/jacket or whatever he wants in a car, his goal will be to do as quick a smash and grab as possible. As 99% of cars are locked, it's quicker to assume they all are and just start heaving the brick straight away, rather than mess around fiddling with door handles and looking suspicious.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like i said, just try it.

    48. Re:Queue the outraged moderates.. by cumin · · Score: 1

      I come from a place where people leave their cars unlocked and the keys in them.

      You want to prevent crime and terrorism? It's really simple: make people trustworthy.

      I sincerely wish I knew how to do that.

      --
      Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...
  3. Terrorism or Suicide? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having read the Anarchist's Cookbook, I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    1. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you really need is a copy of the US Army's improvised munitions handbook.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having read the Anarchist's Cookbook, I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.

      In the process we forget the mere possession of a book doesn't necessarily mean we're attempting to do what's written in it.

      Wow, I just protested against a government policy, they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

    3. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Matt_R · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.

      As we keep seeing, those two states of mind are far from being mutually excusive.

    5. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Funny
      ***Having read the Anarchist's Cookbook, I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.***

      Amen. That's a book that we should encourage terrorists to own and experiment with. Be a lot fewer of them it they did.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    6. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Careful there, you're stepping dangerously close to incitement.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Matt_R · · Score: 1

      you could always just buy it from amazon

    8. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, I just protested against a government policy, they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

      They would, but the jails are all overcrowded, so there just isn't space...

      This all just sounds barmy to me. There was probably more information useful for bomb-making in my A-level chemistry textbook (which I read at the age of 17) than in the Anarchist's Cookbook. Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...). And anyway, what self-respecting geek didn't read some book or other with a similarly provocative title at that age?

      There are words that describe attempting to keep knowledge from the population, and criminalising people just for reading or watching something. There are words that describe governments that do it, too. But I guess they only apply to the bad guys, and our government are obviously the good guys.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Definite "must buy" according to the appropriate recommendations by this reviewer http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2IWRKMMIH1Y6R/ref=cm_cr_auth/104-0238679-1953525?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Jamu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Amazon UK don't seem to have that in stock. They do, however, have the Anarchist's Cookbook.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    11. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by click2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Customers who bought this book also bought "The Catcher in the Rye"

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    12. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by arivanov · · Score: 1
      Wow, I just protested against a government policy, they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

      Definitely. They should also put all chemistry majors there and the microbiology and molecular biology ones for good measure. After all, all of them are walking with recepies of mass destructions in their head! This is a threat to the entire human civilisation and must be eliminated at once. Alternatively, they can be reeducated to ensure they praise th e Lord instead of having idle thoughts of hexogen and smallpox: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/08/0340229.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    13. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well we all know that sedition and terrorism go together. We should also apply the appropriate measures to counter it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fahrenheit-451-Ray-Bradbury/dp/0007181701/ref=sr_1_1/203-0373786-0805564?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191844055&sr=1-1

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    14. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      > This all just sounds barmy to me. This is slashdot. You should have written "balmy" (because FFox spellcheck told you so)

    15. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

      that's ok as long as it's homegrown bio-kerosene, I won't have any part of book burning with foreign and/or fossil fuels.

    16. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Lunarsight · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree. I used to run a BBS, and I had the file available for download. After I read a story about how some kids nearly blew themselves sky-high trying to construct one of the bombs, I took the file down. To me, it was more an issue of liability and conscience.

      I found the text fascinating as a curiosity, but it's not the sort of thing you'd actually try, if you value all your body parts remaining arranged in the proper order.

    17. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's really interesting that The Anarchist Cookbook is neither anarchist nor a good "cookbook" (as the parent post noted).
      The book contains nothing about anarchist political beliefs or history. There is no mention of Lao Tzu, Kropotkin, Bakunin (yes, that's the name they used for the guy with the Russian accent on Lost, but I'm talking about the original), Proudhon, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Revolution (specifically, the anarcho-syndicalist organization and administration of Catalonia), or Food Not Bombs. There is no mention of the centuries of anarchist thought and political philosophy. There is no mention of the Haymarket Affair, which was used to give anarchists the image of bomb-throwers, nor of the fact that of the eight Haymarket anarchists (labor leaders), four were executed and one killed himself in his jail cell before Illinois Governor John Altgeld pardoned the three survivors when he investigated and found that there had never been any proof of the guilt of the "Haymarket Anarchists," and that the jury had been stacked to guarantee a conviction even in the absence of evidence. Altgeld's Reasons for Pardoning Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab is worth reading. Follow the link and you can read it free.
      Also, the author of The Anarchist Cookbook apparently knows nothing about the subjects covered. He (or they, if it's not really one author) apparently just copied stuff from a bunch of different sources. If you read the explosive section, you'll see a given explosive mentioned on one page as being relatively stable and safe, and on another page the same explosive will be described as being very unstable. It appears that a lot of the information was just copied from other sources without any analysis of what was being copied. Further, it appears that the chunks of text copied are sometimes incomplete. It may be that The Anarchist Cookbook is somebody's idea of a practical joke, making gullible kids do things ranging from goofy (like trying to smoke banana peels to get high) to deadly (like blowing off limbs or burning their skin and eyes with chemicals when trying to follow the explosive and drug recipes). It has been suggested that the book may have been put in the market by the FBI as part of its COINTELPRO program. To me that seems a bit tinfoil hatty, but some of the things the FBI actually did in that program really were bizarre, and a person describing them without showing proof (and yes, the proof of some really scary stuff in COINTELPRO does exist) might sound like a tinfoil hat type.

      So The Anarchist Cookbook may be nothing more than a sick joke, but even if the book actually contained any useful information, the idea of banning books about how to make arms is not new. Governments want that for the same reasons they want to ban firearms: to keep the people easier to control. The overblown "threat of terrorism," when you consider how few people are killed by terrorism each year, is just the tool governments an

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    18. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      It is even Amazon Prime -- orders over $25 ship free, or you get free 2 day air if you are a member of Amazon Prime.

    19. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Having read the Anarchist's Cookbook, I'd say anyone actually attempting to use the "recipes" to make explosives should be considered suicidal rather than terrorist.

      There are multiple publications that have used that name over the years. Some are more reliable than others...

    20. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two facts.

      1 - Knowledge is power.

      2 - A fully educated populace is impossible to control with fear.

      America, Australia, Germany, and the UK do not have fully educated citizens. Most in all countries happily trade their freedoms for "security". Making it illegal for someone to posses knowlege in book or document form is the first step in ensuring populace control. sorry but even If I had a "suicide bomber for dummies" book that was 100% accurate and even had detailed maps on how to blow parliament up and ensure that all within were killed it would NOT help the terrorist Islamic extremists that are the current global bogeymen.

      I have documents, pretty detailed ones on building nuclear bombs, bombs, explosives, mining, making your own tools, etc. I personally hid all that information and removed it from my possession as I see lots more of this insanity and oppression coming from our governments.

      If you know how to take care of yourself without government intervention you are dangerous to them.

    21. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by darjen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This all just sounds barmy to me. There was probably more information useful for bomb-making in my A-level chemistry textbook (which I read at the age of 17) than in the Anarchist's Cookbook. Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...). And anyway, what self-respecting geek didn't read some book or other with a similarly provocative title at that age?
      I suspect it is not the information on explosives that they are after. Rather, the viewpoint from which the book is written. If there is ever an excuse for the state to go after someone that threatens their power, it is terrorism. And the anarchist cookbook, however misguided it might be, is an affront to state power. It is certainly in the best interest of the political class to contain the anarchist view as much as possible.
    22. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by iapetus · · Score: 2, Funny

      From a brief scan I find this book terrifying.

      Mostly because it contains instructions for:

      FERTILIZER AN-AL EXPLOSIVE

      I do not want to know why anyone would want to make a fertilizer-based anal explosive that "can be detonated with a blasting cap".

      *shudder*

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    23. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...)

      Haven't you heard, nobody studies science or engineering any more. It's probably for the best, it was all far too dangerous...

    24. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

      Knock, knock, Suv4x4.

    25. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the process we forget the mere possession of a book doesn't necessarily mean we're attempting to do what's written in it. We don't forget it, but our legislators choose to ignore it. Under current UK law, possession of material likely to be useful to terrorists is an offence; there is no need for there to be any sort of intent. And the law is written in such a vague way that even possession of a local street map could be considered an offence. Effectively, the law makes everyone a criminal, so the police can arrest whomsoever they wish.
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    26. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by fatphil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I seem to remember 9/11 being the suicide of fewer than 20 whackjobs. Took 3000 with them.
      Encouraging whackjobs to commit suicide ain't always sensible.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    27. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by fork_daemon · · Score: 0

      Amazon UK don't seem to have that in stock. They do, however, have the Anarchist's Cookbook. Uh oh! I can see the cops heading for Amazon now. Isn't that possession of material /information for terrorist purpose?
    28. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by mpe · · Score: 1

      There was probably more information useful for bomb-making in my A-level chemistry textbook (which I read at the age of 17) than in the Anarchist's Cookbook. Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...).

      Though it's a wonder how the supposed "Terrorist Doctors" managed to make it into medical school without knowing how to built a working carbomb. (About the only way they were any threat to anyone was by being bad drivers.)

      There are words that describe attempting to keep knowledge from the population, and criminalising people just for reading or watching something.

      Maybe the government wants to get rid of anyone with enough knowlage to laugh at some of the stupid consipracy theories they have been pushing recently.

    29. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by soapthgr8 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the most recent "Man on Fire" adaptation with Denzel Washington. His character did something similar with one of the bad guys...

    30. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by mpe · · Score: 1

      America, Australia, Germany, and the UK do not have fully educated citizens. Most in all countries happily trade their freedoms for "security".

      Which is even at best a false dicotamy. In many cases handing more power over to "the state" actually reduces the security of the populace.

      Making it illegal for someone to posses knowlege in book or document form is the first step in ensuring populace control.

      And to make it harder to spot when something is not what it appears to be.

      sorry but even If I had a "suicide bomber for dummies" book that was 100% accurate and even had detailed maps on how to blow parliament up and ensure that all within were killed it would NOT help the terrorist Islamic extremists that are the current global bogeymen.

      All the other terrorists are probably laughing at this obsession.

    31. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! I've always fantasized about knowing how to make this stuff but when I really think about it; I'd rather not, LOL! This stuff is meant to kill and damage a lot of lives. Until times are that desperate or "Skynet" has actually taken over; I'll keep it a fantasy.

    32. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've made a lot of homemade explosives when I was even younger than this boy- 12-13 years old. We didn't have internet back in those days... We didn't even know what The Anarchist's Cookbook is... I didn't even know English as a matter of fact... As far as i know I havent become a terrorist, the only victims of my experimenting with explosives were my hands and I've got some scars to remind me:) Every kid has a pyromaniac side. This mass hysteria about terrorism, pumped up by the public media and "stupid" governments smells really fishy, especially when the real victims are kids arrested for their curiosity and want of knowledge.

    33. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I had mod points, your post was very informative.

    34. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      IIRC the author (or at least editor) of the majority of copies out there for download is/was the CIA.

      For precisely the reason you state.

      --
      -Styopa
    35. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weak attempt at humour, but whatever.
      Localise your Firefox to en_UK and it'd probably pass.
      They do manage other colloquialisms.

    36. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      sorry but even If I had a "suicide bomber for dummies" book.....
      I'd hate to see the fuss caused at an airport with someone traveling with one of those fake book covers titled 'suicide bomber for dummies' ...

      As if a terrorist would actually travel with such a book. But I can see the mindless TSA using their full force if they saw such a thing. Fox news would be all over it. Everyone would simply say how stupid the individual was to travel with it, and politicians would use it as an example of 'how we're winning the war on terrorism'. Where in reality, its a fake book cover intended for humor, and any 'common sense' would tell us that someone with this book cover is no more a threat than the guy next to him.

      Sadly, arresting someone for mere possession of a book is a true sign things are very, very wrong.

      No 'proof of intent' needed. Just lock them up. Heck, lock us all up.
    37. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Don't you love it guys when a grammar nazi doesn't understand english?

    38. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Exactly. How can they not without being accused of selective enforcement? They need to go after Amazon and every other bookstore that sells it, and get a list of their customers and go after every one. Shouldn't be too difficult in today's legal climate.

      At that point everyone should see the absurdity of all of this.

    39. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Jtheletter · · Score: 1

      If you read the explosive section, you'll see a given explosive mentioned on one page as being relatively stable and safe, and on another page the same explosive will be described as being very unstable. It appears that a lot of the information was just copied from other sources without any analysis of what was being copied.
      I think you misunderstood slightly. The word 'Anarchist' in the title refers to the editing style. ;)
      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    40. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by schon · · Score: 1

      I do not want to know why anyone would want to make a fertilizer-based anal explosive that "can be detonated with a blasting cap". Maybe to emulate the goatse guy? :)
    41. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its largely forgotten but "Anarchists" were, in the early 20th century, what "Terrorists" are today. They were used by governments to terrorize their people to justify their power grabs. Anyone who was against abusive, power mad, greedy politicians and governments was a bomb throwing "Anarchist". The term anarchist was used in nearly every other sentence in political speeches to evoke fear, just like terrorist is used today.

      Probably the single most effective methodology for countering Anarchism and Terrorism would be good governance. But it seems nearly impossible for people who acquire political power to govern wisely and effectively. The quickly become drunk on their power. They tax one group to line the pockets of another. They persecute one group to curry favor with another. They make Anarchists and Libertarians look good by comparison, more so everyday.

      --
      @de_machina
    42. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by yakmans_dad · · Score: 1

      You forgot the notorious Anselmo Pederasty case.

    43. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      fertilizer-based anal explosive

      Rectum!

      Sure did....

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    44. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by razorh · · Score: 1

      sounds like the makings for a gerbil cannon to me!

    45. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, the author of The Anarchist Cookbook apparently knows nothing about the subjects covered. He (or they, if it's not really one author) apparently just copied stuff from a bunch of different sources.

      You would be correct to assume so. Apparently the author admits it, and even wants to take the book out of print, but unfortunately he doesn't have the means or rights to do so. As an ex-adolescent I have to admit that I purchased this book when I was younger, and still have it. It was an intriguing read, but even then I wasn't crazy enough to try any of them. Some of the plans didn't even sound like they would work. All the same, it was an interesting read and good brain food. Curiousity is a good thing, you just need to be able to recognize bad ideas and misinformation, and read between the lines.

      http://www.righto.com/anarchist-cookbook-faq.html

      For the lazy, here's the author's comments in full:

      Dear Mr. Shirriff,
      I have recently been made aware of several websites that focus on The Anarchist Cookbook. As the author of the original publication some 30 plus years ago, it is appropriate for me to comment. I would appreciate it if you would post these comments as part of your website on the Anarchist Cookbook. Please do not include my e-mail address. However, should you wish to confirm the authenticity of this message, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.

      The Anarchist Cookbook was written during 1968 and part of 1969 soon after I graduated from high school. At the time, I was 19 years old and the Vietnam War and the so-called "counter culture movement" were at their height. I was involved in the anti-war movement and attended numerous peace rallies and demonstrations. The book, in many respects, was a misguided product of my adolescent anger at the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that I did not believe in.

      I conducted the research for the manuscript on my own, primarily at the New York City Public Library. Most of the contents were gleaned from Military and Special Forces Manuals. I was not member of any radical group of either a left or right wing persuasion.

      I submitted the manuscript directly to a number of publishers without the help or advice of an agent. Ultimately, it was accepted by Lyle Stuart Inc. and was published verbatim - without editing - in early 1970. Contrary to what is the normal custom, the copyright for the book was taken out in the name of the publisher rather than the author. I did not appreciate the significance of this at the time and would only come to understand it some years later when I requested that the book be taken out of print.

      The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this.

      Apparently in recent years, The Anarchist Cookbook has seen a number of 'copy cat' type publications, some with remarkably similar titles (Anarchist Cookbook II, III etc). I am not familiar with these publications and cannot comment upon them. I can say that the original Anarchist Cookbook has not been revised or updated in any way by me since it was first published.

      During the years that followed its publication, I went to university, married, became a father and a teacher of adolescents. These developments had a profound moral and spiritual effect on me. I found that I no longer agreed with what I had written earlier and I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the ideas that I had put my name to. In 1976 I became a confirmed Anglican Christian and shortly thereafter I wrote to Lyle Stuart Inc. explaining that I no longer held the views that were expressed in the book and requested that The Anarchist Cookbook be taken out of print. The response from the publisher was that the copyright was in his name and therefore such a decision was his to make - not the author's. In the early 1980's, the rights for

    46. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know which "anarchist cookbook" you're reading, but the one i have (the black paperback by an author called "william powell") is packed with that stuff.

      aside from the "recipes" that are so universally derided, it reads like a cheesy 70s-era counterculture manifesto that definitely attempts to explain "why" the author is "sticking it to the man".

    47. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by mister_woods · · Score: 1

      ...but the jails are all overcrowded, so there just isn't space...

      Never mind about the lack of space in Her Majesty's Prisons: the powers that be are busy turning the whole bloody United Kingdom into Europe's largest open prison. Don't forget it is already home to the majority of the world's CCTV cameras; civil liberties have been eroded in pursuit of the "War on Terror", further monitoring measures are planned with ID cards and biometric passports. Moreover, British children are being taught to regard their biometric data as unimportant, with the introduction of fingerprinting in schools for trivial transactions such as obtaining a school lunch or borrowing a library book.

      Who needs prisons when the majority of the population passively accepts such intrusion into daily life?

    48. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      Wow. I didn't know about that. Awesome post. And too bad you felt you had to post as AC, though I suspect I know why. An earlier reply to my (grandparent) post says I'm in big trouble because of the references I cited. I wish I could just laugh it off, but some part of me refuses to completely discount the threat. Sad times.

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    49. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And still, the goverment did not even try to prove that the mentioned 17 year old had an anarchist view. There is no mention of a specific intent of any kind. The goverment argues for an existence of a thought crime. Since, for example, the Khmer Rouge did torture and accuse of people suspected for a connections with the CIA, the British goverment has surpassed the Khmer Rouge in its totalitarian behaviour by accusing a person for a thought crime. Didn't Orwell actually warned about the totatitarian tendencies in the British governing culture?

    50. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      What absurdity?
      The possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook was only part of the reason he was charged. Both the charges appear to refer to a collection of items discovered and activity the guy was engaging in. Although judgments should be left till after the court case, it seems obvious that this guy was making threats and even plans to bomb a political party's members/headquarters AND playing around with making bombs.

      Imagine the criticism the police would have got if they didn't confiscate his Anarchist's Cookbook, among the other items. Police don't confiscate kitchen knifes, but if you are spotted spending all day practicing your stabbing technique on mannequins and saying to people "I'm going to stab you" then the police definitely should do something.

      This isn't absurd at all, but simply common sense. Leaving a tool capable of being used to commit murder in the hands of someone who has expressed intent to commit such an act would be absurd!

    51. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every day the US seems more and more appealing concidering what the likes of Germany / UK have been up to recently.

      Smoking kills a 9/11 crowd every day and noone gives a flying rats ass...

    52. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Damn near killed him.

    53. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Intron · · Score: 1

      So are you saying the police should lock up this guy?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    54. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by LazyBoy · · Score: 1

      The book contains nothing about anarchist political beliefs or history. There is no mention of ... the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Revolution (specifically, the anarcho-syndicalist organization and administration of Catalonia) ...
      We're an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer must be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting ....
      --

      If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.

    55. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by drseuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wouldn't surprise me if copies are loanable in UK public libraries (along with other "munitions" such as the "Dummies Guide" to GCSE Chemistry). Certainly books detailing DES encryption algorithms and (heavy-duty) cracking techniques etc. are on the shelves. The reason the latter are made publicly available for loan for free provided by the UK government is presumably to allow security conscious businesses and individuals to improve their own security against cyber-terrorists (which they do - I used to think that Synack was a baddie in Star Wars). Well, I'm being generous - it's just as likely to be some clueless librarian who bought said books because they had a geeky-looking cover even though they hadn't the faintest idea what they were about or a plant by "they" to track who borrows them. TFA indicates that this is not the only evidence used to charge the individual(s) and I would sincerely hope that it's not.

    56. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by 32771 · · Score: 1

      I'm really pathetic, I found some catchy headlines in the contents part i.e. "21 - Preparation of Picric Acid From Aspirin". Yet I can't just go and look for fear that somebody might misunderstand this. Damn, it reads like a headline from the "Nosy Inquirer". I got the FM21-76 at Barnes and Noble right from the shelf but I've never seen this one there. Would make a fine addition though ;).

      --
      Je me souviens.
    57. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Under current UK law, possession of material likely to be useful to terrorists is an offence; there is no need for there to be any sort of intent. And the law is written in such a vague way that even possession of a local street map could be considered an offence.
      Terrorists eat bread, so bread is useful to them. Clearly, anybody who owns bread should be arrested immediately!
      And, of course, more than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
    58. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by cuantar · · Score: 1
      --
      Legalize it.
    59. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Reziac · · Score: 1


      So if I possess a Bible, does that mean I might intend to rain fire and brimstone on Whitehall??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    60. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by shawb · · Score: 1

      Don't forget conservation biology while you're at it. It's obvious how that's just a gateway to COMMUNISM!!!

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    61. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      IIRC The Anarchist's Cookbook included instructions for making explosives and mind-degrading drugs. Consider the possibilities.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    62. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      As someone who discovered the Anarchists cookbook on a local BBS at the age of 12, I learned that people never really get used to your lack of eyebrows.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    63. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect it is not the information on explosives that they are after. Rather, the viewpoint from which the book is written. If there is ever an excuse for the state to go after someone that threatens their power, it is terrorism. And the anarchist cookbook, however misguided it might be, is an affront to state power. It is certainly in the best interest of the political class to contain the anarchist view as much as possible. You are judging the book by its cover aren't you? The Anarchist's Cookbook is not full of any "viewpoint" - no diatribes, no essays, just semi-bogus instructions for a bunch of james-bond stuff.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    64. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by darjen · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am assuming that when the state sees anyone in possession of a book with "anarchist" on its cover, it will get pretty scared. They are assuming that someone will become an anarchist and start targeting the state's buildings or something. It is all part of the natural fear the state has of its people. It's pretty obvious that they're the ones who don't know the book's content.

    65. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``That's a book that we should encourage terrorists to own and experiment with. Be a lot fewer of them it they did.''

      That's why they prohibited it, obviously. If marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws. So now only the terrorists get the book, and blow themselves up. Brillant!

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    66. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they better put me in jail before I kill someone.

      Actually they won't put you in jail for this until you annoy somebody. At which time, this will be brought up and you will be put in jail. That is the current system.

    67. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by o2sd · · Score: 1

      ROFL! That has to be the funniest troll I've seen for years.

      --
      - Nothing to see hear.
    68. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Boomer_Zz · · Score: 1

      And booby traps, got em both. Should never have to use them though.

      I figure I'm ok since it says US on it.

    69. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      Slashdot wrote:
      It appears that a lot of the information was just copied from other sources without any analysis of what was being copied.
      now why does this seem vaguely familiar?

      (but, good links, good analysis, yay parent post)

    70. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Not to be confused with explosive AN-AL fertilizer, which is best countered by the liberal application of Kaopectate or Immodium AD.

    71. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...). Don't worry, your government is hard at work doing this right now...

      - Tell me, what good is a phone call, if you're unable to speak?

    72. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      They are assuming that someone will become an anarchist and start targeting the state's buildings or something.

      Anarchy doesn't mean violence.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    73. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by darjen · · Score: 1

      Yes I know, I am an anarchist and oppose all violence that isn't in self defense. Especially state violence in any form. But as far as the state goes, it's not above them to erroneously equate anarchists with violence, and use that as an excuse to prosecute people, as in this case we are discussing right now.

    74. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious that they're the ones who don't know the book's content. That seems like an odd assertion given that they confiscated the book from the kid - surely they must have thoroughly inspected it along with all the other materials they confiscated. I think the only reason they charged him with respect to the book is because of its title - it makes great sound-bite fodder since the majority of the sound-bite listening public will have never heard of it before.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    75. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by darjen · · Score: 1

      Good point, perhaps I should have instead said that they are ignoring the book's contents. But, I did say that they are mostly going off the title. Because they can't stand the thought of anarchists that oppose everything they do.

    76. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Customers who bought this book also bought "The Catcher in the Rye"

      How many times? And do they all go by all three names?

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    77. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by rolandw · · Score: 1

      Surely if you can purchase this book from Amazon then that makes Amazon accessories to terrorism. Shouldn't the whole company be arrested?

    78. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In the process we forget the mere possession of a book doesn't necessarily mean we're attempting to do what's written in it.
      Surely possession of this book wouldn't in itself be enough to convict someone of terrorism, wouldn't you need to show that they had actual bomb-making materials, plans of targets, meetings with other terrorists, and so on?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    79. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      Um, simpler than any military manual or the Anarchist's Cookbook, go to a good antiquarian book shop and pick up a nineteenth century set of encyclopedia, particularly one with a good engineering and science focus. A knowledge base of all sorts of exothermic chemistry, ranging from trinitro cellulose to black powder to production of acids, caustics and all manner of potentially explosive materials.

      Is ownership of a shelf-full of these volumes illegal? My mum and dad are screwed, then.

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
    80. Re:Terrorism or Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know the various texts with the name Anarchist Cookbook aren't actually anarchist in the political sense.

  4. ugh.... by mstahl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't people know most of the stuff in that book is a good way to get yourself blown up? Dangerous or not, though, censorship of any kind is just not acceptable in a free society. Everybody should read banned books.

    1. Re:ugh.... by GrievousMistake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I'll bet an fair amount of UK children are going to read Anarchist's Cookbook now. Let's hope any media coverage is informed enough to mention that the stuff in the book is less than 100% factual, but I doubt it. They'll probably make it sound like a really cool read.

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
    2. Re:ugh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, all the explosive "recipes" in it were researched from entirely innocent public sources at the author's local library. It's hardly secret underground knowledge.

    3. Re:ugh.... by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ***Don't people know most of the stuff in that book is a good way to get yourself blown up? Dangerous or not, though, censorship of any kind is just not acceptable in a free society. Everybody should read banned books.***

      The Anarchist's Cookbook is one of the few solid examples that comes to mind of a book that really should be kept away from children. The problem isn't that it might warp the mind (based on the results, there's little justification for leaving that job to parents, churches and TV). It's that the mind in question may be splattered all over the fridge if kids try cooking up some of those recipies in the kitchen.

      At what point do the dangers of censorship overcome the dangers of content? I'd say 16 years of age, but I'll settle for 18 or 21.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:ugh.... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Books aren't generally very dangerous in that sense. Not even this one. Mostly if you're old enough to be able to follow instructions to the point where it gets dangerous, you're old enough to understand that doing so may, infact, be dangerous.

      Lots of objects are dangerous even to a child that can't yet understand how/why they are dangerous, or consistently evade the danger, but books only very rarely are.

      The parents should decide. I don't think there's very many combinations of age/book that I would deny my children, but time will tell I guess. There's certainly a lot more combinations of age/object that I'd reject. A 5 year old has no business being alone with a dog. A 8 year old can't (generally, offcourse these things are always subject to the kid in question, which is one reason the parents are the rigth persons to make the choice) safely use a motorboat. A 14 year old can't on her own travel to Thailand (random example, but you get the point)

    5. Re:ugh.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I read the Anarchists Cookbook when I was 11 or so, and didn't blow myself up. A few years later, made thermite, in a controlled environment (a chemistry lab, supervised by a chemistry teacher) and welded a couple of coins together with it.

      I never splattered my brains everywhere, because I knew that making unstable explosives is a good way of damaging yourself. If you haven't worked that out by the time you are old enough to follow the instructions then you have much bigger problems.

      I probably still have a copy sitting around somewhere. I haven't looked at it for years.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:ugh.... by kayditty · · Score: 0
      From that link:

      Explore BBW
      I... don't really think that's a good abbreviation.
    7. Re:ugh.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Everybody should read banned books.

      My wife and I make it a point to buy the books on their list of "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000". Seriously, people who want to ban "Huck Finn" or "A Wrinkle In Time" should be rounded up and shot (how's that for censorship?). I don't want to live in a society where my kids can't read "Flowers For Algernon" some day, so we make sure that those books will always be available to them.

      Having said that, a lot of those books were challenged for being inappropriate for an age group, and I'm pretty OK with that kind of restriction. I can't think of a single reason why Madonna's "Sex" would be appropriate for a first grader, for example, and I'd be a bit irked if it showed up in the local early-elementary library.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:ugh.... by mstahl · · Score: 1

      A Wrinkle in Time is on the banned books list?!?! That's terrible! I'm gonna have to see if I can find any information on why.

      Anyways age restriction is less about censorship and more about parents taking an active role in their child's development and their reading choices. There's nothing wrong with that and that's really where the responsibility for these things lies. As for books showing up in the elementary school library; that's more about common sense on the part of the librarians and tolerance on the part of other parents who may be more restrictive.

      I'm not a parent and I'm not sure I will be any time soon (I'm 24, after all), but I will say that I can't imagine ever telling a child "you can't read that book ever". My parents gave me no restrictions whatsoever on my reading material. In fact my father, a reading education researcher, often took an active in trying to fight back against the banning of books (we lived in Georgia at this time, so it was extra super bad). I feel like I turned out just fine, and reading is a daily part of my life still.

    9. Re:ugh.... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Was there a summary of WHY the books were banned in the first place?

      Guess the pen is mightier then the sword -- since you can't kill an idea.

    10. Re:ugh.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Was there a summary of WHY the books were banned in the first place?

      The ALA doesn't provide that information, at least not that I could find. Wikipedia has information on individual books, eg in the entry for "Flowers for Algernon":

      While the full novel does contain material about the character's personal life (that is, flashbacks of experiences of puberty that may be objectionable to some readers), the original short story does not.
      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:ugh.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      A Wrinkle in Time is on the banned books list?!?! That's terrible! I'm gonna have to see if I can find any information on why.

      Thus spake Wikipedia:

      L'Engle's liberal Christianity is unsettling to some. This novel is on the American Library Association list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 19902000 at number 22. Reasons given include the book's references to witches and crystal balls (although the characters are not in fact witches, and the crystal ball is a science fictional one), the claim that it "challenges religious beliefs", and the listing of Jesus "with the names of great artists, philosophers, scientists, and religious leaders".

      Off-topic note: as a lifelong Christian, I have no problem with some concepts. Those complaints are specific to a vocal minority.

      I'm not a parent and I'm not sure I will be any time soon (I'm 24, after all), but I will say that I can't imagine ever telling a child "you can't read that book ever".

      Likewise. My parents told me a few times that they wished I'd read something other than the cheap sci-fi or horror novel I was carrying around that week, and they'd tell me why, but I don't remember ever being told that I couldn't read something. I imagine I'll be having the same conversation with my kids some day as they migrate from "Hank The Cowdog" to "The Shining".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    12. Re:ugh.... by mstahl · · Score: 1

      *le sigh* People—particularly here in the US—need to settle on down. People get offended so easily here it's like a nation covered in eggshells, especially the religious right, which seems to be everybody here these days. We are a "free society" that bans books and where fewer people believe that natural selection is the most accurate description of biology around the world than they did in the 1920s. There's something wrong.

    13. Re:ugh.... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Simply because the information is available doesn't mean
      everyone who reads and / or learns the information contained
      therein instantly becomes a terrorist. Nor do they feel any
      overwhelming urge to launch a Jihad against everything in sight.

      Reading these types of books is fascinating. It's interesting
      for minds who require a bit more advanced entertainment than
      hours of mindless TV night after night.

      TIP: If you enjoy ' Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader ' then
      reading anything is probably not on your list of things you like
      to do.

      Sarcasm aside, banning information is a surefire method to ensure
      everyone will try and read it. Possession of the information itself
      should not be a criminal offense. Getting caught trying to implement
      some of the ideas ( ergo building an incendiary or explosive device )
      to protest your taxes is still covered by our current laws.

      Where do you stop ? Going to throw everyone in jail who has already
      read them ? How about the authors who wrote them ? Why don't we just
      jail everyone who can read and be done with it ? You know, go back to
      the old religious way of doing things where it was an offense to be
      literate at all. Only the clergy were allowed to read. Wouldn't want
      the common folks forming their own opinions you know. . . . .

      To date, I have never created anything more explosive than the Taco Bell
      I made the mistake of consuming once. . . .

      Yet, I have owned ( at some point ) books and information far, FAR more
      dangerous than the Anarchist Cookbook. . . .

      Once upon a time, Paladin Press was a respectable publisher who believed
      censorship had no place in the books / information they sold. Apparently,
      the Government changed their mind and they ceased selling anything that
      was considered ' controversial. '

      The last purchase I made from the company was titled " The Spook Book II. "
      It became the last purchase when several of the schematics within had various
      parts censored out. ( Because building an amplifier assembly for a parabolic
      mic might endanger someones life somewhere of course. . . . :| )

      It angered me so much that I destroyed every title I owned from the company
      in protest ( A few thousand dollars worth ) and have never ordered anything
      from them again.

      Information censorship just doesn't work. It will find a way to get to the
      folks who need it. Legal or otherwise.

    14. Re:ugh.... by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

      How about number 88? Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford. I tried, and failed, to think of any reason for that book to be banned. I mean, alright, I can accept that with millions of parents, you're bound to have some nutcases who'll have problem with any book. However, the fact that this book is on the top 100 most frequently challenge books just boggles the mind.

    15. Re:ugh.... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I tried, and failed, to think of any reason for that book to be banned.

      If you look very closely at one specific image, you can see a topless woman on a beach. I have to admit that I was pretty surprised to see nudity in a Where's Waldo book (even of the silly, cartoony variety), although not so surprised that I'd want to run out and ban it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:ugh.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Bleah.... I read it as an early teen. I ran a BBS and had the text file everyone thought was so "cool" to possess back then. I happened not to be stupid enough to try making any of the explosives in there, though. Maybe the text files weren't quite the same as what was said in the original book, but I distinctly remember some of the recipes (like one for making nitroglycerin) even warning you that the described process was highly unstable. There was some bit about mixing things in a container sitting in a container full of ice, and having to be absolutely certain the mixture stayed below a certain temperature at ALL times, or it would explode. Even a 12 or 13 year old kid can read that and think "Hmm... so this one is probably a little more risky than what I want to try out myself!"

      The only kids I knew who MIGHT be crazy enough to make things based on a book like this were the ones bound to get in serious trouble anyway. Banning the book wouldn't cure their real issues.

    17. Re:ugh.... by adatepej · · Score: 1

      In the US, content of any kind (movies, books, video games) that are illegal to sell to some people because of their age are not sold to people above 18 years old.

      I can't imagine that anyone could possibly believe that people should have to wait until they are 21 years old before they should be legally allowed to purchase any video, book, or movie. Or beer. (Or drugs.)But let 'em fight a good wholesome war rather than exposing them to sex or drugs or ridiculous old text files. Or voting. What a world.

      And, I'll echo the OP in this thread explicitly: censorship of any kind, designed to restrict what media adults can consume is not good. Very not good.

      There's no need for laws that criminalize possessing information: 1) If someone commits a "terrorist" act, then you book them for that. 2) If someone doesn't commit a terrorist act, and they are adults, they should be free to possess whatever information they please. Clause to #2: If they have not committed a terrorist act, but are very clearly about to do so, you can book them for conspiracy. However, conspiracy laws must not be overreaching! The conspiracy laws should not criminalize possessing information -- otherwise number 2 would be violated. There should be clear proof that they had committed to taking an action. This is a matter of degree, and subjective lines must be drawn. I believe that at most possessing information should be a *small* part of a case -- serious evidence that they were going to do something illegal should be present.

      And this isn't a ... "rights" based argument whose results are questionable. This is practical. The only assumption is that prosecuting people for possessing information without criminal intentions should be legal. People possess information that could be used to commit a crime without committing a crime. In fact, I'd argue that a lot of people who commit crimes don't do a whole lot of reading! :) And people also possess information that could only find practical application in criminality WITHOUT doing something criminal! Think about computer security books for an example of the former! Or books on a variety of sciences. (Hey, is that medical books so you can perform underground abortions or take bullets out of mobsters?) So, it's absurd to prosecute someone who hasn't done something yet, but who possesses something like the Anarchist's Cookbook, *unless they were clearly going to commit a crime*.

      And, to bring the argument down to the earth, I would put the total number of people who did something illegal after reading the Anarchist's Cookbook in the dozens. And, those people never came to the attention of police. You know why? Because the only crime they committed was getting high on banana peels. (Bananadine! Assuming that's illegal.) The Anarchist's Cookbook is *comedy*. Get it? *Nobody* who is serious about committing a crime would use it as a source for information. It is totally absurd to consider possession of literature like the Anarchist's Cookbook primary or substantial evidence against someone in a conspiracy case.

      Information that could potentially used criminally shouldn't be illegal; only actually committing a crime or intending to commit a crime should be prosecuted. And the burden of proof regarding intent in a conspiracy case should be very high. No amount of proof of reading should ever be illegal.

      Let's hope that the guys responsible for prosecuting this will figure this out or that justice will otherwise prevail and some 17-year old won't be convicted for terrorism over something absurd. "Terrorism". Man, that word has really come on strong this past decade.

  5. Amazon.co.uk by rvw · · Score: 5, Informative

    This means Amazon is a terrorist organization! See Amazon.co.uk: The Anarchist Cookbook (Paperback).

    1. Re:Amazon.co.uk by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      ooo, that's just gold, thanks for pointing that out. I really hope if it goes to court that it's pointed out there too!

      I've never read it myself but I known of it's existence, as has just about any other child in school in the UK around the 1990's (or, I would imagine, any child globally with internet access at home or in school around that time)

    2. Re:Amazon.co.uk by notaspunkymonkey · · Score: 1

      I had never read it either until I noticed this discussion - I have flicked through it in the past few mins.. it doesn't look very exciting.. and as I live in the UK - I am expecting the knock on the door shortly..

      better hide my stash of Anti Aircraft missiles just in case.

    3. Re:Amazon.co.uk by infolation · · Score: 1

      It is certainly going to court. The boy is appearing in Crown Court on 25th October 2007.

    4. Re:Amazon.co.uk by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      TFA makes it much clearer that this is about far more than just an ebook though, flaming hot /. summary..

  6. Everyone? by Zelos · · Score: 1

    Is that the book with all those recipes for drugs made from banana skins etc.? I remember loads of people at my school having a downloaded copy of that at 13-14 years old.

    1. Re:Everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think so.

    2. Re:Everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a hundred different .txt collections calling themselves the anarchist's cookbook, but yeah at least some of them have that bullshit about "bananadine" in. Just one of many inaccuracies, at least that one won't kill you ...

    3. Re:Everyone? by ShotFromBehind · · Score: 1

      Yes. It also has info about making bombs (kinda) and explosives they may or may not work but are certainly dangerous to attempt given the directions. I myself had a downloaded copy when I was 13, or maybe younger. It really was more or less useless.

  7. That's a bit vague... by neokushan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism

    Doesn't this mean they can pretty much charge anyone for having any kind of information relating to Bus/train/airplane times? Software Vulnerabilities? Google Earth? The Location of the White House?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:That's a bit vague... by alexhs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism. Also every student in chemistry, materials science... can be charged. Hey, they are dangerous people, they know stuff...
      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:That's a bit vague... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 0

      Oh, add in Biochemists, we can hit Terrorism and The War on Drugs at the same time!

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    3. Re:That's a bit vague... by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this mean they can pretty much charge anyone for having any kind of information relating to Bus/train/airplane times? Software Vulnerabilities? Google Earth? The Location of the White House? I think you got the point completely.
    4. Re:That's a bit vague... by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it does. It's a bit like that question on the US visa waiver form that asks if you're coming to the US to commit crimes. This means if you do commit a crime, they can give you extra punishments by adding the crime of making a false declaration on the visa waiver form.

      This is the same thing. It gives the authorities extra charges they can add to increase the severity of the punishment and make it more likely that they can secure a conviction. If the state starts sliding towards a real police state, it also allows them to arrest anyone for practically anything - for instance, for a government to have political opponents arrested, by using nebulous laws that can practically make any object "useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism". A police state would go through, say, the government opponent's garden shed and find some sodium chlorate weedkiller, and arrest the opponent on the grounds that this is an ingredient for explosives and useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

    5. Re:That's a bit vague... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've pointed this out a number of times since the law was passed. Any terrorist might find it useful knowing where the PM lives. Okay, he lives at number 10 Downing Street. You now all possess information likely to be of use to a terrorist organisation. Posting AC from the library because my job depends on it.

    6. Re:That's a bit vague... by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      "Doesn't this mean they can pretty much charge anyone for having any kind of information relating to Bus/train/airplane times? Software Vulnerabilities? Google Earth?"

      No, in practice it seems to mean not anyone, but people with a darker skin complexion in posession of this type material.

    7. Re:That's a bit vague... by mandel · · Score: 1


      I'm trained as an electronics engineer, I could probably design an alarm clock, radio control or a bit of a mobile phone - they've all been used in bombs before.

      I also write software, and I'm sure that's used in terrorism. That makes most of the ./ population extremists!

      Who's that banging on the door - ahh! they've come to take me away....

    8. Re:That's a bit vague... by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

      While physicists are only a danger to ourselves.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    9. Re:That's a bit vague... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I applied for security clearance here in the UK (it's lapsed now), one of the questions was 'have you ever attempted to overthrow the government through violent, political, or other means?' This was particularly badly worded, since the government in the UK is the party with a majority in the House of Commons. I have tried to overthrow them via political means every few years since I've been eligible to vote, simply by voting for a candidate from a different party. I suspect this isn't quite what they meant, however.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:That's a bit vague... by fatphil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not hypothetical - there really was a case in the UK a few years ago where an A-Z brand street map was treated as such information.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    11. Re:That's a bit vague... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Dont forget everyone that has ever served in the military. Once released they now have 'forbidden knowledge'

      The idea is that this is an easy book to go after due to its 'persona'. One step closer to state control of information. ( that isnt an attainable goal anylonger, but wont stop them from thinking its still the 50's and trying anyway )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    12. Re:That's a bit vague... by mpe · · Score: 1

      A police state would go through, say, the government opponent's garden shed and find some sodium chlorate weedkiller, and arrest the opponent on the grounds that this is an ingredient for explosives and useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

      If they don't have a shed just say they have "One of the components of the most powerful binary explosive known". Just don't let on that the other component is antimatter.

    13. Re:That's a bit vague... by demachina · · Score: 1

      Time for the obligatory quote from John Brunner's, "The Sheep Look Up":

      "I'm referring specifically to apparently normal children, without obvious physical or mental defects. I'm convinced people are subconsciously aware of what's going on, and becoming alarmed by it. For example, there's an ingrained distrust in our society of highly intelligent, highly trained, highly competent persons. One need only to look at the last presidential election for proof of that. The public obviously wanted a figurehead who'd look good and make comforting noises"

      --
      @de_machina
    14. Re:That's a bit vague... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be so outraged if these were simply extra charges piled on top of stupid stuff the kid had already done.

      These are the ONLY CHARGES HE FACES. They have literally arrested him for possession of the book. It's absolutely fucking dreadful, and possibly the surest harbinger that Britain is dead.

    15. Re:That's a bit vague... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
      much easier to deal with." -- Atlas Shrugged (http://www.working-minds.com/ARquotes.htm)

      "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/35950.html)

    16. Re:That's a bit vague... by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      In the US, form SF-86 is a bit more specific:

      30.
      a) Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities?

      b) Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?
  8. perhaps he was arrested to protect the child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have not read that thing in a good many years, but from what i remeber it was filled with alot of miss imformation, some of which could be harmful.

  9. Honk! Honk! by tripwirecc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The last time I've perused the section of textbooks for education, I've come across books for aspiring pyrotechnicians and chemists that create pyro-stuff. They've also contained instructions, recipes, handling instructions and whatever else. Because of that, I almost die laughing seeing all the attempts to ban said material on the web.

    1. Re:Honk! Honk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. I've had the cookbook mirrored on my web site forever (since ~1995); even got a call from Florida DOJ once about it (funny, considering that I worked at NYS DOJ at the time). Folks just need to realize that their reading material don't label them as anything.

  10. Am I the first person who gets to say... by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe it is finally time for a constitution? In writing, with guarantees of free speech?

    Just a wild, crazy idea.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Zelos · · Score: 5, Informative
      I would have said that the Human Rights Act provided that, but reading the actual text it doesn't: Article 10
      Freedom of expression
      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
    2. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Spad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because that's working out so well in the US these days ;)

    3. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by somersault · · Score: 1

      As long as we in the UK don't all end up gun toting lawsuit crazy maniacs.. I don't see why anyone needs this book anyway. If they charged him for having this book then they probably knew he was going to use it. *goes to RTFA*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
            2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


      Hmm, didn't know the exact text. So, in short:

      People should have rights, except for when they don't

      Nice.

    5. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Again, the threat is not that this book is such a must-read (actually, it's about as lame as it can be and only survives as a "shady underground" book because of its fancy title). The threat is that if one book is considered to be a "terrorist tool", others will quickly follow.

      The danger is that accepting this means accepting that knowledge may be illegal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by jon287 · · Score: 1

      Here, you can have ours. We're not using it anymore!

      --
      To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
    7. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying a bit.. but after reading TFA.. the guy was wearing a hoody, and in court no less! Obviously a terrorist ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      All nice and fine. But then say that he was suspected for possession of chemicals, for having a history and record, and for all the other little tidbits that add up.

      All that doesn't make him some sort of terrorist. Just a violent teenager who wants to destroy stuff. Is that already enough to get the terrorist label today? Then I should probably be glad back when I was young there was no terror craze, or I'd still be doing time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security,

      Actually, that's fair enough. For example, allowing blanket freedom of speech without any responsibility for the consequences is naive.

      However, since the sort of thing described here is hardly in the interests of national security nor necessary in a democratic society, I fail to see how that exception applies.

      Of course, with this government the Human Rights Act upholds a very important principle, except when it gets in the way of being heavy-handed and authoritarian, in which case it's just a criminal's charter and we should all ignore it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by v1 · · Score: 1

      for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,

      Law has NO business there.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    11. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "I don't see why anyone needs this book anyway."

      I don't see why the government should be empowered to restrict citizens on the basis of "need". Think about all of the things you have which fall outside the criteria of what might constitute "necessities". Should the jolly good government be able to arbitrarily deprive you of anything it deems that you don't "need"?

    12. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying.. but (by the sounds of it quite poor/unsafe) recipes for making bombs? I doubt they're nailing him purely for the possession of this, which would be quite stupid - there must be something else going on. For example, how did they even know he has it? He is either under suspicion or has been doing a lot of big talk about blowing shit up..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by mpe · · Score: 1

      However, since the sort of thing described here is hardly in the interests of national security nor necessary in a democratic society, I fail to see how that exception applies.

      All too often "national security" equates to "ensuring that some official does not look like (too much of) an idiot". In some cases this can require several people working full time :)

    14. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      Anyone with any sense knows that the second clause nullifies the first.

      If they want to combat terrorism, the solution is simple. Eliminate cash and chip people. Show papers to buy bread.

      Let's get it over with.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    15. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      For example, allowing blanket freedom of speech without any responsibility for the consequences is naive.
      But if you don't spell out what the restrictions are, then you really don't have any guarantee of free speech. I would say not protecting these would be a reasonable start:
      * Speech where it can be proved you are deliberately lying
      * Spending more to get your speech out than an average person makes in a year
      * Purely mechanical instructions on how to do something destructive -- I'm skittish about this one.

    16. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Purely mechanical instructions on how to do something destructive -- I'm skittish about this one.

      Me too. That's restricting knowledge, and such knowledge probably has practical, legitimate applications for someone. Of course, one could also argue quite rationally that all knowledge is legitimate for its own sake, and that it is the acts one commits or does not commit using that knowledge that count.

      I was actually thinking of things like serious deception (such as defamation that is wilfully damaging someone else's character, or providing professional advice when unqualified to do so) or incitement to commit a specific criminal act (such as asking someone to murder your adulterous wife). Even in the latter case, you inevitably walk a fine line: the UK government is now criminalising incitement to certain feelings, which is pretty much thoughtcrime.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    17. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      [scratching scalp] May I speculate as to the reason for opposing public morals legislation? However, if this is going where I think it is going, I'll need to take a bleach bath.

      [computer] Bink! ( Mouse pointer turns into mauve triangle)

      [grimacing] I'll need to take a bleach bath.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    18. Re:Am I the first person who gets to say... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Hmm, didn't know the exact text. So, in short:

      People should have rights, except for when they don't

      Of course. Freedom of expression must be limited to some degree in order to protect national secrets that could literally get people killed - eg the identities of undercover agents infiltrating gangs or foreign powers, etc.

      I would argue that criminalising the possession of knowledge that could be useful to terrorists and other such criminals is so far the wrong side of the line as to be utterly abhorrent though. Any competent engineer or chemist, and a large number of physicists, physicians, biologists, historians, etc have as a matter of course knowledge that would be useful to terrorists. Hell, anyone with a physics degree could have a good crack at constructing a dirty nuke, given the right materials. Guess I'd better turn myself in.
  11. who wrote it .. by rs232 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Anarchist's Cookbook is part based on a Spanish language urban guerrilla warfare manual that the CIA cooked up when they were promoting unrest in central America. I wonder will they be arresting the head of the CIA anytime soon. This is just part of Bush's phony war on terrorism where as what they are really about is shutting down free discourse on the Internet. You see you can't oppose the US/Israeli policy in the mid-east without being a terr'ist ..

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
    1. Re:who wrote it .. by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "You see you can't oppose the US/Israeli policy in the mid-east without being a terr'ist .."

      ...or modded as flamebait it would seem. The US has trained more international terrorists in the "art of constructive chaos" than anyone else for most of my 50yrs (closeley followed by the UK and France), it has often been under the guise of the war on drugs. It would seem to me that the "dogs of war" turned on the hand that stopped feeding them after the cold war.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:who wrote it .. by julesh · · Score: 1

      The Anarchist's Cookbook is part based on a Spanish language urban guerrilla warfare manual that the CIA cooked up when they were promoting unrest in central America.

      Err, no actually, it was written by William Powell in 1971, back when the CIA were far to busy in Laos to do anything in central America.

  12. a new meme in the making? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... is not in charge of Gundam.
    Heh... As if we had not enough of these.

  13. Yes by Xiph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't you think that'll come in handy when fighting Terrorism?
    What do you have to be afraid of, if you're not a Terrorist?
    Now that i think about it... You'd better come in for questioning, seeing as you're in on a Terrorism charge, we can hold you indefinately while we investigate which books you have.

    Aaarrgh.... too much paranoia.

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aaarrgh.... too much paranoia.

      It's only paranoia if they're not out to get you.

      As the current administration has so capably demonstrated, it has no qualms about going after anyone. There was a story just last week about armed police taking two disabled guys down to the station and questioning them because they had the audacity to sit outside their local pub having a drink, open an item of mail, and look at the (heavily armed) police officers nearby. They were just outside the Labour Party conference — the same event, IIRC, where an 82-year-old, long-time member of the party and Holocaust survivor was forcibly ejected a couple of years ago for daring to heckle the man who took us into a highly dubious war, and then preventing from re-entering under the same Terrorism Act referred to in this story, and the following day an elected MP's camera was wiped because he had taken pictures of the queues to get in. Apparently that individual has enough backing that the people are willing to elect him their representative and let him make law on their behalf, yet he can't be trusted with a couple of photos of his own. Was that security, or just trying to prevent politically damaging material leaking out?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bournemouth, armed officers fill the streets, and then arrest and search the flats of two men who dared to look at them over a quiet pint and a utility bill.

      http://www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1717690.0.seized_by_the_police.php?s=s

    3. Re:Yes by daivzhavue · · Score: 1

      too much paranoia. My Mom's afraid to tell me what she's afraid of.
      --
      "A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
    4. Re:Yes by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    5. Re:Yes by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      "It's only paranoia if they're not out to get you."

      Then it's paranoia.

      I remember the kind of faux outrage you're pretending to, but that was years ago and I was a child.

      I wonder what your excuse is...

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    6. Re:Yes by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      My excuse is that I've been screwed by a trivial government mistake. In my case, it cost me a substantial amount of money at a vulnerable time when doing so could have meant I literally couldn't pay the rent, and it took months to clear up. In other words, my "faux outrage" isn't false at all, it's based on direct personal experience.

      And that was "only money", though the implications at the time were serious. A similarly trivial mistake could easily result in someone being arrested and held for a considerable time, with all the long-term damage that causes even if ultimately released without charge. We know this has happened on literally thousands of occasions under the so-called anti-terrorism legislation.

      If you think this is just paranoia and faux outrage, then I submit that you are the one with the problem here, not the rest of us.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  14. But... by Aladrin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Think of the Chil... Wait, Terrorism? OH MY GOD. Which way is everyone else picking?

    I hope that accurately summed up the sheeple's confusion on this one. Of course, in reality, children (especially 17 year old ones) that break the law should be prosecuted (maybe not quite as harshly as an adult would be) and terrorism should be stamped out, but this is -neither-. The 'kid' was probably just interested in what all the hubbub was about, and thought the book was the cool thing to have.

    As far as I can tell, the 'material' he had was only the book, and the 'information' he had was also the book. Unless he was actually BUILDING a bomb, he hasn't done anything wrong. In fact, from a career standpoint, he's just prepping for a good military career as a demolitions expert. (Or other demolitions expert, for that matter.) The entire world is far too quick to jump on someone for possible terrorism when they are simply going about their daily lives.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  15. Horrible by mvanes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be horrible to be prosecuted for owning something trivial like The Anarchist Cookbook. I'm of the opinion that information should be free, it's what people do with that information is what should make them eligible to be prosecuted. Just because someone has a degree in Nuclear Physics doesn't mean that they're going to construct nuclear bombs and cause anarchy. Information can be dangerous but we need to convey logical conviction. I'm hopeful that the courts will show some common sense and rationalize.

    1. Re:Horrible by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      From the article.

      The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year.
      The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.


      While I agree owning the book should be legal, it looks like him and his mate were going to do something. Whether it was blowing up a dustbin or something/one else we will have to wait and see.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    2. Re:Horrible by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I've not read the Anarchists Cookbook since I was about 13 but, from what I recall, what he and his mate were going to do was blow their own hands (and possibly other parts of their body) off. Or go and find a better reference book.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rightly or wrongly, intent is the key here. Possession of a knife is not illegal. Possession of a knife for the purpose of murdering somebody is, then a prosecution may be brought. Similarly, possession of the Anarchists' Cookbook becomes illegal when it is owned for the purpose of furthering terrorist activity. Also, the BBC is quite light on details, as it believes it has a mandate to maintain social cohesion, and is therefore reluctant to speculate on the motives of this 'British boy'. This leads the reader to quite naturally draw the conclusion that this is a completely unwarranted attack on a young man's freedom.

    1. Re:Intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. If some things were allowed or prohibited purely intending on it's intended purpose, then the police, if they wanted to arrest me, could come to my house, pick up any old screwdriver (or indeed the anarchist cookbook, which I have a copy of lying somewhere in a BBS archive), and declare that I probably planned to do something illegal with this. In essence the one where you make everyone criminals, so you can arrest and prosecute anyone you want.
      If you want to regulate possession based on intent, you issue licenses, and make possession without a license illegal.

    2. Re:Intent by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      "could come to my house, pick up any old screwdriver (or indeed the anarchist cookbook, which I have a copy of lying somewhere in a BBS archive), and declare that I probably planned to do something illegal with this"

      Not unless you had showed some sign of intent. That is how the law is supposed to work. Of course you can argue about the vagueness of the idea of showing intent but that is how it is supposed to work.

    3. Re:Intent by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      So, that's where you guys got the idea of "Thoughtcrime"!

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    4. Re:Intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Rather, if they found the anarchists cookbook, tons of fertilizer and diesel oil, a large van and driving directions to the parliament, these things would be what was presented in court to show intent. The actual crime wouldn't be 'possession of diesel oil with nefarious intents', it would be something concrete and illegal in its own right, like 'conspiracy to yada yada'.

      It would silly if objects turned illegal purely based on their intent, rather than simply having the actual action itself be illegal. If I planned to strangle someone, would I be set free, or would they charge me with 'illegal possession of hands with intent to murder'?

    5. Re:Intent by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      "Not unless you had showed some sign of intent."

      In the UK these days, "some sign of intent" (at least enough to get arrested for terrorism) involves:

      a) Not looking at police officers:

      "I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates" - from http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html)

      or

      b) Looking at police officers:

      "On Michael's stop and search form they said they wanted to speak to him, under the Terrorism Act, because he had been looking at a police officer" - from http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/latestnews/display.var.1717690.0.seized_by_the_police.php

      So that pretty much covers it...

    6. Re:Intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What that tells me, is that the presence of a police officer is an incitement to commit terrorism - ban the police!!

  17. Please ..... by TheLogster · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does this mean that anyone how has studied:

    Physics
    Chemistry
    Biology
    Computer Science

    Also be charged under the Terrorism Act, as they (probably) have documents that would be "useful" in planning a Terrorist Attack. Let's face it, it would seem that the basic human right of the Right to Insurrection, is slowly being removed.

    Remember 300 years ago, the founding fathers of the US were considered "Terrorists", as well as William the Conqueror in 1066.

    The easiest way for a democratic government to stay in power, is to listen and to act out the will of the people, which is what they were elected for.

    1. Re:Please ..... by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does this mean that anyone how has studied:

      Physics
      Chemistry
      Biology
      Computer Science

      Also be charged under the Terrorism Act


      If it does then Slashdot's going to be a very empty place shortly...

    2. Re:Please ..... by warp_kez · · Score: 1
      I have to admit, the same thought has crossed my mind. Personally, the word terrorist is being thrown around so much that the real 'bogeyman' does not have to do anything - he has us all spooked enough to see him in every face we encounter.

      Remember 300 years ago, the founding fathers of the US were considered "Terrorists" And around that time, suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun was considered heresy and with those who suggested it treated as enemies of the state.
    3. Re:Please ..... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, the founding fathers were rebels, and William the Conqueror was an invader.

    4. Re:Please ..... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Remember 300 years ago, the founding fathers of the US were considered "Terrorists"

      Nonono, that's "freedom fighters". They won.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Please ..... by Beale · · Score: 1

      Get back! I have a copy of "Fun with Science for Children" and I'm not afraid to use it!

    6. Re:Please ..... by tomknight · · Score: 1

      Every cloud has a silver lining...

      --
      Oh arse
    7. Re:Please ..... by stupid_is · · Score: 1
      Well, my field is maths, so I should be safe.

      Now, what's this letter from DHS? Something about a DMCA......

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
  18. Censorship. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    This IS censorship. I've seen too much of this in my life...
    Wouldn't expect it to happen in Great Britain - the country claims to be very liberal on human rights (a way too much in some cases).

    One tip to the British government - if you want to fight some real terrorists, you better start with all the Chechen "rebels" you have given asylum to, not some teenagers.
    It really pisses me off, when extremists were (are?) able to openly recruit new volunteers to fight in Chechnya right in the heart of London, when obvious criminals like Pinochet and Beresowsky play with British justice while enjoying their stay in most comfortable apartments in the City, but 17-year old teenagers are prosecuted for a single BOOK they possess.

    How long will it take till the government starts to burn forbidden books?

    1. Re:Censorship. by Saint+V+Flux · · Score: 0

      "Wouldn't expect it to happen in Great Britain - the country claims to be very liberal on human rights (a way too much in some cases)."

      You must be new here if you're surprised - every few weeks there's another article on here about Great Britain is horribly violating it's citizens rights.

    2. Re:Censorship. by 6foothobbit · · Score: 1

      Britain has been dealing with terrorists for decades. Anyone remember the IRA?

    3. Re:Censorship. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >Great Britain - the country claims to be very liberal on human rights
      Ah, what you need to understand is the British way of doing things. If it's something that is so obviously stupid and/or unfair as to mak people think no sensible person would support it, the government will be all for it and write a dozen or so laws to promote it. If, on the other hand it's an area of Human rights that Joe Public thinks will be a Good Thing then you can be pretty sure the govt will ignore it with great vigour.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    4. Re:Censorship. by vidarh · · Score: 1
      The scary thing about the UK is how many ordinary people actually think the Human Rights Act (which is pretty limited and watered down to start with) should actually be abolished, because there's a view that it lets people "get away" with too much stuff they don't like or restricts the government too much (such as, you know, preventing inhumane treatment of prisoners...)

      It's an image perpetuated by media, enhanced by the fact that the best selling newspapers etc. in the UK are tabloids specializing in particularly venomous sensationalism, and obviously stories about how "normal people" have been helped by the Human Rights Act incite far less anger (and so fewer sales) than stories about how some "evil" (by middle England standards) person have been given right to do something that doesn't sit well with the mobs.

    5. Re:Censorship. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      The Human Rights Act came straight out of European Legislation but as per usual, they (rest of Europe) tend to follow the intent of the law rather than the letter leaving the good old UK to make a hash of things so we end up with prisoners successfully suing for having to take a dump in front of their cell mate during lockup.
      Alas, good and laudible though the act is, they weren't prescriptive enough in laying out common sense boundaries and now we have hoards of people taking advantage of that.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  19. He was making explosives by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing the headline, summary and article itself don't make clear is that this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan. More information article. There's a lot more to this story than "kid reads forbidden book and gets arrested". It sounds more like "this guy looks like he was planning on blowing people up".

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then they should be pushing all of those items with their case, instead of trying to slip in the legal beginnings that they can use as an excuse to start carrying people away later for simply having downloaded an ebook or bought a paper copy from Amazon.

    2. Re:He was making explosives by ritesonline · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thanks for the link. For anyone too busy to go there here's a quote:- "A Yorkshire schoolboy was found with chemicals used for making bombs under his bed, a court heard yesterday. The 17-year-old, from Dewsbury, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of plotting to make bombs following a trip to Pakistan. He is also alleged to have had a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook on his computer. Piers Arnold, prosecuting, told City of Westminster Magistrates' Court the book had instructions for "viable" bombs" Look's like most Slashdotter's took the bait with the original post...

    3. Re:He was making explosives by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... he has the right chemicals, he appearantly knows what to do, was in Pakistan (suggesting he was in some sort of "training camp") and then he goes and gets the AC as tutoring material?

      C'mon. That's like Kev Mitnick reading "Hacking for Dummies". I got a stuffed nose currently, but still something's fishy here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate,

      Also known under name "fertilizer", usually sold in 50 kilo sacks of granulated form in agriculture stores,

      250g of calcium chloride,

      that's a box of blackboard chalk...

      videos of beheadings

      yuk, gross!

      and he had recently visited Pakistan

      OMFG! You don't say... P a k i s t a n !!! The Evil Empire itself!

    5. Re:He was making explosives by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Informative

      One thing the headline, summary and article itself don't make clear is that this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan. More information article. While this is certainly potentially more incriminating, it's still quite puzzling that his documentation was this lame book (that most network old timers must have read or browsed) and not one of the many proper military manuals on the same topic that float about.
      If he indeed went to Pakistan and had contacts with some sort of indoctrination organisation there, one would expect that they would have pointed him to some proper documentation with recipes that actually worked or didn't blow up in your face.
      Based on the little information leaked, it seems to me that he's some kind of wannabe that just wanted to get noticed.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    6. Re:He was making explosives by caluml · · Score: 1

      I ate some calcium chloride once in a chemistry lesson. Burnt my tongue. My reasoning was that calcium is less reactive than sodium, and sodium chloride is commonly eaten. Learnt my lesson though.
      And Mr Jakes (Jacques?) dragged me out by my ear for that. Wonder if he reads Slashdot.

    7. Re:He was making explosives by ritesonline · · Score: 1

      And I suppose that the fertilizer label also said to take a kilo out and store it in a warm dark place, like under the bed!

      There's enough injustice out there without trying to invent more, whether you like it or not there's a case to answer and the cops have probably got this one right.

    8. Re:He was making explosives by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

      If he's guilty of all that, then they might as well drop the part of the charge relating to possession of the book, yeah? Nail him on all the other stuff--like having been to Pakistan. Pakistan! The missing link in the Axis of Evil. Visiting Pakistan should be a capital offense.

      Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

      --
      Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
    9. Re:He was making explosives by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      But then the last two lots of bombings in the UK failed to go off due to poor workmanship and who knows possibly rubbish instructions. Also the possesion of materials useful for terrorism has been a crimial offence in the U.K. since long before the advent of 9/11 due to the existance of the US funded terrorist organisation the IRA. In the UK if you know someone is planning a terrorist operation and fail to report it to the authorities you can find yourself in jail.

    10. Re:He was making explosives by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Right chemicals for what? Calcium Chloride? Are you kidding. Now Stearate would have been more interesting...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    11. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like the police have good cause for arrest. But charge him for possession of bomb-making materials, not a book.

    12. Re:He was making explosives by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Also the possesion of materials useful for terrorism has been a crimial offence in the U.K. since long before the advent of 9/11 due to the existance of the US funded terrorist organisation the IRA. This kind of silly law is problematic because of it's wide reach (someone above gave the example of detergent and gas that can be used for firebombs and that you'll find in lots of suburban houses). OTOH it might be that we have the same kind of law here (France) thanks to the ETA (Basques, active in France and Spain) and various north African terrorist groups that blow stuff (and people) up every now and then.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    13. Re:He was making explosives by Secrity · · Score: 1

      I thought that the IRA's bomb making capabilities were WAYYYYY past The Anarchist Cookbook.

    14. Re:He was making explosives by Cyryathorn · · Score: 1

      "this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan"

      It's almost as if someone was deliberately trying to sensationalize the story by focusing exclusively on the "Anarchist's Cookbook" angle. Great for righteous indignation and pageviews, no?

      The best part of the summary is those two little words, "in part". I.e., "plus, like, some bomb making material but nevermind about that".

    15. Re:He was making explosives by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it makes a lot of sense. The attempts to brew explosives on a plane (a procedure that required 7 hours and no vibrations, to be undertaken on a 5 hour flight with a high probability of turbulence), and the recent airport bombings (where the 'terrorists' were surprised that propane canisters were designed not to explode) were clearly organised by someone with no understanding of explosives. From what I recall of the Anarchist's Cookbook, it seemed to be written by someone with a similar lack of understanding.

      If I were a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, I would believe that various governments were intentionally spreading things like the AC to ensure that any potential terrorists would blow themselves up before they could do any real damage.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:He was making explosives by Soldrinero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan,


      You do realize that this means he had a pound of fertilizer, half a pound of ice-melter, and some gross but widely-distributed web videos? Oh, and he visited a country that is supposedly our closest ally in the "War On Terror."

      Nice sensationalism there.
      --
      I would rather be killed by a terrorist than enslaved by my government.
    17. Re:He was making explosives by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1


      >>250g of calcium chloride,

      >that's a box of blackboard chalk..

      No, blackboard chalk would be calcium carbonate.

      Calcium chloride is the stuff you use to melt ice on your sidewalks in winter....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    18. Re:He was making explosives by mikeb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Potassium nitrate is the oxidising ingredient in gunpowder and is not used as a fertilizer, the parent post is probably confusing it with ammonium nitrate, both a widely-used fertilizer and a major ingredient in ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil) explosives used in the mining industry and much admired by the IRA in Northern Ireland. ANFO is simple to mix, extremely stable and very effective. Its downside is that it takes a stick of dynamite to set it off.

      Calcium chloride is not blackboard chalk, though calcium sulphate is. Calcium chloride has a range of uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride) that don't seem to make it an obvious choice for storing under ones bed.

      Possession of potassium nitrate isn't an offence in the UK but when I as a boy, making home-made-gunpowder, asking for it at the local pharmacy meant fibbing and saying it would be used in tanning squirrel skins, since they were wise to its possible uses. Posession of bomb-making equipment is an offence in the UK and I'm not surprised that without a good excuse, the rozzers took a dim view of this lad's home chemistry set.

    19. Re:He was making explosives by julesh · · Score: 1

      this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate

      Check. It's in my kitchen, because I use it for the preparation of ham.

      250g of calcium chloride

      Check. In my tool shed, labelled "concrete accelerant".

      videos of beheadings

      I don't have any of those, but I'm pretty sure my web browser history would be interesting enough to find _something_ that suggests I have interests in line with some extremist group or other. That's not hard, you know. Not to mention those violent video games. I'm sure there are records that could be pulled off my hard disk that show I used to play the terrorists quite regularly in Tactical Ops. And in many of my games of Civilization, I played Persia, and Persia is an old country that was located in roughly the same place Iraq is now.

      and he had recently visited Pakistan.

      And I've recently acquired membership to attend a planned conference of radical thinkers, many of whom posit a future in which the current world governments have been replaced by a fundamentally different political structure, and who have serious beards. Is this or is this not more fundamentally suspicious than visiting the country of one's birth (I'm just guessing this, but it seems quite likely)?

    20. Re:He was making explosives by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Okay, the KNO3 is somewhat exciting, in a dirty DIY blackpowder kind of way, but does anyone have any idea what's dangerous about a big pile of CaCl? In the States they pour tons of that on the roads to melt ice, but I literally cannot think of a single exciting thing you can do with that salt. At least with table salt, a bunsen burner, and a power supply you can crank out sodium metal, but CaCl is as boring as Britney.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    21. Re:He was making explosives by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is wrong with you?

      Just because has other things that are more incriminating than the book, doesn't mean the book is irrelevant. The only reason the Slashdot article makes a big thing out of having the book is because 'OMG THOUGHTCRIME', despite that not being the case at all - this 'kid' was planning to blow up the British National Party.

      Let me turn this into an analogy for you. In America, owning a gun for self-defence is protected by the constitution. Going out and blowing someone's head off is a crime, and now the gun was not intended for self-defense and you lose your constitutional right to own it.

      In the same way, owning this book is not a crime, using it as a basis to plot to blow someone up is and once you do that it becomes a murder weapon.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    22. Re:He was making explosives by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      In that case it's interesting that they did so ages ago. It would show forethought not often associated with governments.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    23. Re:He was making explosives by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      You should try some cyanide. It's mostly nitrogen, which is inert, and carbon, which is like burned toast. So it can't possibly be bad for you...

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    24. Re:He was making explosives by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he's guilty of all that, then they might as well drop the part of the charge relating to possession of the book, yeah? Nail him on all the other stuff--like having been to Pakistan. Pakistan! The missing link in the Axis of Evil. Visiting Pakistan should be a capital offense.

      Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
      Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

      I'm guessing that you're either ignorant of the number of Islamic extremists that have been further indoctrinated and received terrorism training in Pakistan recently. Or is it that you just don't care?

      Three of the four 7th July suicide bombers that killed 52 people had done so. This kid may well have done so as well. Should the security services wait until people have blown themselves up before lifting a finger? Or should they, hmmm, try to stop things before they get that far?

      It's not as if police in Britain randomly pick muslim families to harass. This kid's name came up somewhere as a result of some security operation and it raised red flags. Upon investigation he was found to have had bomb-making gear under his bed, etc, etc, and a case was built from there.

      He now has his day in court and the Crown Prosecution Service can make their case for his guilt and he can make his case for his innocence, and he'll be given ample opportunity to tell the court his story. It's not like he's been summarily found guilty of anything or indefinitely thrown in a hellhole without any legal recourse.

      This is justice working as it should be working. What part of that do you really object to?

      Oh, by the way, I know that you were joking with your "Pakistan = Axis of Evil" line but it's closer to the truth than you realise. It was the only country in the world to recognise and support the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, it's chief nuclear weapons scientists gave nuclear secrets to North Korea to help them develop their own nukes, and muslim extremist and other groups backed by Pakistan have committed several terrorist attacks in India (killing plenty in the process). And, of course, Pakistan been a dictatorship for some time now.

      If Pakistan didn't already have nukes then it would have been on the US's shit list a long time ago. But, as it does, the US supports the illegitimate military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf rather than risk the alternative, which would potentially be a radical muslim state armed with nukes.

      In many ways Musharraf and Pakistan today are analogous to Saddam Hussein and Iraq pre-1990: Western-backed military dictatorships in heavily armed muslim countries where abuses of power are ignored because of a "hey, he's a mad dog but at least he's our mad dog" attitude.

      Finally, I'll point out that we don't execute people in Britain, not even convicted terrorists. And we certainly don't execute convicted children. Ironically, abolishing the death penalty for children is one good thing that Pakistan has done recently.

      Now, if only Musharraf would get on the phone and convince his good buddy Dubya that it's time for the US to stop executing children as well...
      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    25. Re:He was making explosives by db32 · · Score: 1

      I will point out the LAWYER types are the ones claiming that book had anything to do with what this kid was doing. Which is a convenient legal scapegoat because now they can wave that silly book around instead of having to prove he really knew what he was doing from other mystery sources. Very few people know how hokey that book is, and its not going to be hard to scare the masses into being afraid of that book.

      Further, it is a VERY damned good example for the government to latch onto to start a book banning campaign in the name of anti-terrorism. Prosecutors get an easy case, government gets an easy example. Win Win. Look at Jose Padilla, doesn't seem to be much shortage of evidence that this guy was scum, but it makes it awefully damned hard to defend him against the government using him to set really bad precedents on how they are allow to treat citizens by applying a few nice lables.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    26. Re:He was making explosives by pla · · Score: 1

      While this is certainly potentially more incriminating

      More incriminating? Notice they describe weights and chemical names, and refer to an "underground" book on explosives. Pure sensationalism.

      If they had said "So, we found a bag of fertilizer, in the shed with some potting soil, pots, and gardening tools; a bag of ice-melt in the garage next to a bucket of sand and a snow-shovel; an all-time best selling book available in a dozen languages and from major vendors such as Amazon; oh, and his browser cache contained video clips from last night's NBC Nightly News", we'd have people rioting in the streets over the outrageousness of calling the kid a potential terrorist.



      Especially here on Slashdot, anyone damning this kid for the circumstantial evidence needs to think back to their own teens (or last night, as the case warrants). How many of us made small bombs just for fun? How many of us, if the police raided our houses today, wouldn't have all this and more, all purely innocuous? And even if for playing around with explosives, that still doesn't make a person a threat to anyone but themselves.

    27. Re:He was making explosives by sjames · · Score: 1

      One thing the headline, summary and article itself don't make clear is that this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, videos of beheadings and he had recently visited Pakistan.

      I used to have loads of potassium nitrate, black powder, etc etc. I made fireworks out of it. I took great care to make sure it never harmed anyone including myself. Nobody ever got hurt. I stopped when I no longer had the time. Of course that was back in the days before America became the land of the (not so) free and the home of the chickenhawks.

      I guess I had good timing. Shortly after that, we had the bomb during the olympics and the news frantically urging people to turn in anyone who had a lot of pipe, black powder, old alarm clocks and wire in the basement (I chose not to turn in a few people I knew who reload their own ammo and are packrats by nature). Of course, they then proceeded to turn the hero of the moment into the villain. They quacked on about it for so long and were so quiet in their retractions that there are plenty of people who still don't know he was fully exonerated.

      I also had a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook but too much sense to actually trust anything in it. We can HOPE they have more to go on than that and that it's just another case of the media pressing all the hot buttons and skipping all the 'boring' details. Unfortunatly, there are way too many cases of late where police on both sides of the pond have gone off half cocked and screwed someone up for life (or killed them) to feel all that sure about it.

    28. Re:He was making explosives by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Especially here on Slashdot, anyone damning this kid for
      the circumstantial evidence needs to think back to their own
      teens (or last night, as the case warrants). How many of us made
      small bombs just for fun? How many of us, if the police raided our
      houses today, wouldn't have all this and more, all purely
      innocuous? Note the use of "potentially". This after the fact that I quoted his visiting Pakistan on top of his having chemicals in amounts that were of little use outside of dustbin orbiting experiments.

      So while I'll gladly agree to having made my own explosives in my youth, it wasn't in that volume (although my homemade missiles were actually fired over a schoolyard to the building beyond it, something that would probably land me in front of a firing squad or something nowadays)
      (I hang my head in shame... this was *outside* of that school's hours though, I wasn't quite that stupid, and, uh, they didn't work all that well, really. And I hadn't visited Pakistan or whatever the current terrorist training ground was at the time before ground... I did read Phrack and other assorted crap through...). I've (mostly, now that I'm 40) grown beyond experimenting with silly stuff like this (well, mostly), but I can quite relate with the urge to do so. Poking at stuff is natural and part of growing up (although poking at stuff following the recipes in The Anarchist Cookbook is a good way to avoid paying taxes, hint hint).

      So to get back to the matter at hand, yes, we all did some rather stupid things when we grew up (or at least a lot of us did), however most of us didn't go to what is currently considered as one of the main radical Muslim countries before doing so. Which is what prompted my "potentially more incriminating" comment.

      Had he been just collecting old 50's clocks to gather enough enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb, it would just had been another silly teenager prank. In this case it just *might* be something else from a *very* stupid teenager. Hopefully the authorities will catch the "very stupid" bit and act accordingly (although unfortunately they probably won't).

      And that is all I have to say on the matter for now. ;)
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    29. Re:He was making explosives by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      this 'kid' was planning to blow up the British National Party.
      Then give him a medal for fucks sake.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    30. Re:He was making explosives by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      It's not as if police in Britain randomly pick muslim families to harass.
      Are you sure?
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    31. Re:He was making explosives by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      With governments, no. With intelligence services? Definitely. I wouldn't put something like this past GCHQ. Remember these are they guys who sat on RSA for a few decades before it was reinvented and published in the USA.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nice sensationalism there.

      I live in York where the Yorkshire Evening Press is based. I therefore feel obliged to point out that, like most local newspapers, the YEP is a bastion of over sensationalised bullshit based on stories which barely merit mentioning, written by morons whose only real aim is to move to a bigger newspaper. As I said, it's like most local newspapers (at least the ones I've had the misfortune of reading in the UK).

    33. Re:He was making explosives by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      You know, what is being reported there may very well be true. However, considering how many bogus things that've been reported on (the recent "OMG terrorists are doing dry runs oh wait, they're not" thing comes to mind, among many others) I'm not inclined to give the media or government the benefit of the doubt.

      When you look at their record in accusing terrorists over the last 6 years, they've been wrong WAY more often than right. Of course it's difficult to realize that unless you pay careful attention. The accusation makes headline news every day for a week, and then when the truth comes out it's only a small clip at the end of the broadcast on maybe a couple of stations.

    34. Re:He was making explosives by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      If that's the case one must determine his intent.

      Was it for learning?

      Was it for killing people? If so then he might be a terrorist. However, can you believe what the government tells you? No. They MUST PROVE THEIR ALLEGATIONS.

      However his acts of alleged terrorism doesn't excuse the British Government's acts of terrorism.

    35. Re:He was making explosives by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      oops, I forgot to preview...tags didn't work. What I meant to say was:

      "OMG terrorists are doing dry runs [quietly]oh wait, they're not[/quietly]"

    36. Re:He was making explosives by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Acting on intelligence isn't random harassment.

      Considering how infrequent such raids have been (whenever they've occured they've certainly received plenty of media coverage, so they don't happen under the radar) it would take a pretty big stretch of the imagination to consider that security forces have wasted their time and resources by just picking names out of the hat.

      You might want to consider two things. Firstly, that no operation is 100 percent perfect so, unless you do nothing at all, false positives are almost inevitable. Keeping the number of false positives as low as possible is clearly an operational goal but the key objective is to stop terrorists from carrying out further atrocities.

      Secondly, plenty of people who've been red flagged and then raided have been sitting on top of bomb arsenals that they were preparing to use. So, for the most part, these raids have been resounding successes.

      If the police were truly just picking targets at random then how do you explain the high degree of success they've had in finding the right people at the right time?

      So, yeah, I'm sure.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    37. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! That stuff is so normal that I have it all under my bed too! So do my friends! And their friends! And everyone they know! Dang! Who doesn't have fertilizer and/or ice melter under their bed?

    38. Re:He was making explosives by rduke15 · · Score: 1

      Pardon the nitpicking, but no, Persia was NOT "located in roughly the same place Iraq is now." Persia is Iran, and it isn't even Arabic.

    39. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CaCl is as boring as Britney

      CaCl is used in a number of binary explosives. Yes, they do exist outside Hollywood.

    40. Re:He was making explosives by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      My bed is on permafrost you insensitive clod.

    41. Re:He was making explosives by mpe · · Score: 1

      One thing the headline, summary and article itself don't make clear is that this guy had half a kilo of potassium nitrate,

      But no mention of sulpher or carbon. Or indeed anything else you might be able to use together with potassium nitrate to make any kind of explosive.

      250g of calcium chloride,

      Just as well they didn't look in the kitchen then they might have found sodium chloride even potassium chloride...

    42. Re:He was making explosives by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Secondly, plenty of people who've been red flagged and then raided have been sitting on top of bomb arsenals that they were preparing to use

      Plenty of people? Like how many?

      The ever reliable Wikipedia has

      • 2003 5 January: Wood Green ricin plot where police arrested six Algerian men accused of manufacturing ricin to use for a poison attack on the London underground. No trace of the poison was actually found [12][13], and all men were acquitted except for one who stabbed a police officer during his arrest in Manchester several days later[14].
        [No bombs here, move along please]
      • 2003 October: Andrew Rowe arrested in Dover after being detained as he entered the Channel Tunnel in France. [8] Convicted as a "global terrorist" and sentenced to 15 years in prison on September 23, 2005 on the basis of traces of explosives on a pair of socks and a code translation book. [9] [10]
        ["The jury could not reach a verdict on the socks, and prosecutors decided not to seek a retrial."]
      • 2004 30 March: Seven men arrested in West Sussex in possession of 600 kg of ammonium nitrate fertilizer as part of Operation Crevice.
        [This is it, the one case where people were arrested with something that probably was intended to be a bomb. Of course the cretins didn't have an idea what do bomb. I think their other plan "Plotting to poison football crowds by selling spiked drinks at matches, and sell poisoned food from a takeaway restaurant." sounds more likely to succeed.]
      • 2004 3 August: Fourteen men arrested, but only eight charged in relation to the 2004 Financial buildings plot following the leak of the identity of a Al-Qaeda double-agent. The men possessed detailed plans for attacking financial buildings in the US, but no actual bomb making equipment. The leader, Dhiren Barot, pleaded guilty at his trial on 12 October 2006 and was convicted to life imprisonment.
      • 2004 24 September: Four men arrested in the Holiday Inn in Brent Cross trying to buy red mercury, a mythical substance which could purportedly be used to construct a nuclear bomb, from a newspaper reporter. [11] One man was released three days later [12], while the other three were cleared at their trial on 25 July 2006 [13], during which the jury was told that "whether red mercury does or does not exist is irrelevant". [14]
        [Red mercury! It is to laugh!]
      • 2005 22 July: The Metropolitan Police tracked Jean Charles de Menezes onto a train and shot him seven times in the head at close range because they thought he was a suicide bomber.
      • 2005 28 July: David Mery arrested at Southwark tube station on suspicion of terrorism for wearing a jacket "too warm for the season" and carrying a bulky rucksack. All charges were dropped on August 31. [15]
      • 2005 28 September: Walter Wolfgang was ejected from the Labour Party Conference under the Terrorism Act 2000.
      • 2005 22 December: Abu Bakr Mansha, described by his barrister as an "utter incompetent" was accused of planning to murder a British soldier who had served in the Iraq War and convicted under the Terrorism Act for possessing a document that was "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism." He was sentenced to 6 years.
      • 2006 2 June: The 2 June 2006 Forest Gate raid on a house in Forest Gate saw the arrest of two suspects, one whom was shot in the shoulder, on charges of conspiring to release a chemical weapon in the form of suicide vest. No traces of poisonous chemicals or a terrorist intent were found with the suspects, who were released days later.
      • 2006 10 August: The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot to blow up 10 planes flying from Heathrow saw the arrest of 24 people from their homes in Britain, chaos at the airports as security measures were put in place, and numerous high level statements from US and
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    43. Re:He was making explosives by mpe · · Score: 1

      But then the last two lots of bombings in the UK failed to go off due to poor workmanship and who knows possibly rubbish instructions.

      Assuming you mean the cars containing gas bottles to call these "bombings" is stretching the meaning of the term. On the other hand Miles Cooper did appear capable of building working bombs. But as he is white with links to "animal rights" terrorists.
      Part of the problem with this "war on terror" hysteria is the authorities "crying wolf", with the help of the mass media. Whilst tending to overlook the "wrong sort" of "terrorists". Whereas in actual fact anti-abortion and animal rights terrorists are probably far more plentiful (and actually dangerous to members of the public) than "Islamists". At least when it comes to Europe and Noth America.

      In the UK if you know someone is planning a terrorist operation and fail to report it to the authorities you can find yourself in jail.

      Unless those planning it are "the authorities" or those they consider "friendly" in which case you are more likely to find yourself in jail if you do go to the police.

    44. Re:He was making explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and he visited a country that is supposedly our closest ally in the "War On Terror." No, they're not, the Musharraf regime is. The country has way too much lawlessness to be regarded as "Suspicion free"
    45. Re:He was making explosives by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Well done for learning how to cut and paste.

      I have to laugh.

      The list you made includes the infamous occasion when a Labour party member was heavy-handedly thrown out of the party conference by the party's own event's management personnel: hardly something that you can pin on the security forces.

      It also includes an example of an average policeman doing his best to look like an idiot by arresting someone for wearing suspicously bulky clothing in summer. I've had a similar experience myself, when I held a friend's hockey stick for all of one minute while he went to buy something from a store and a passing policeman decided to take offence at my standing there doing nothing and insisted that I walk towards my friend and then proceded to arrest me for possession of an offensive weapon (which lasted for all of five minutes) when I said I'd wait where I was standing. But, to be fair, the paranoia in the case mentioned occured in the same month that 52 people were blown up on public transport in one set of coordinated attacks and another set of attacks was executed but failed to work.

      Yep, great list. Proves your point perfectly.

      Just this week another trial has taken place. One man has pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges and five more are still being tried.

      Again, no operation is going to be 100 percent successful. You have to make a decision on whether to be conservative or aggressive or to take a middle approach. But when the wrong decision can mean losing lives it's not an easy decision to make.

      I'd rather have the occasional false positive than see another attack like 7th July happen again. Perhaps you'd prefer that though.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    46. Re:He was making explosives by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      In case you are too hard of hearing:

      The original claim was:

      Secondly, plenty of people who've been red flagged and then raided have been sitting on top of bomb arsenals that they were preparing to use
      This is simply a lie.

      The "terrorist threat" is clearly real. It is also clearly exaggerated.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    47. Re:He was making explosives by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      You're excluding, of course, the cases that are currently in the judical system.

      But I'll ask you this: when it comes to people preparing to blow up themselves and others to make a point, one is plenty enough, isn't it?

      I'm curious: if you were in charge of things then how would you run things? Would you just wait for people to be blown up and then pick up the pieces?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    48. Re:He was making explosives by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      You're excluding, of course, the cases that are currently in the judical system.
      Am I? In what cases currently in the judicial system were "bomb arsenals" found?

      But I'll ask you this: when it comes to people preparing to blow up themselves and others to make a point, one is plenty enough, isn't it?
      So when you said "plenty of people" you meant "one group". Ah.

      I'm curious: if you were in charge of things then how would you run things? Would you just wait for people to be blown up and then pick up the pieces?
      Looking at the list of absurd "plots" that have been aborted, the one real plot that worked, and the two idiot plots that failed, I'd say there isn't much chance of many people being blown up. We've seen worse, we got over it, no reason to panic.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  20. Who needs the ACB by warp_kez · · Score: 1

    Just read through Wikipedia - you can easily gleam enough information on how to turn regular dihydrate oxide into some form of ignition or explosive device just by adding some chemical to it.

    1. Re:Who needs the ACB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrmpf, dihydrate oxide is generally considered a very poor choice for synthesis of explosives. It's notoriously hard to ignite and has been known to fail completly in multiple instances under even slightly humid conditions.

    2. Re:Who needs the ACB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dihydride oxide, or, as it is better known, dihydrogen monoxide, is dangerous enough all on its own. You don't need to add anything to it. For such a common household chemical, people have little idea how dangerous it is. Some people even let their kids play with it!!

  21. The world has gone mad by hairykrishna · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Posession of 'the anarchists cookbook' is a crime now? It's about as close to being a useful terrorism manual as my dog is to being prime minister. Never mind though, eh? Anything to keep us 'safe'. We're doomed.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:The world has gone mad by vidarh · · Score: 1

      At least your dog would be unlikely to pass more draconian laws. I'd vote for him over several of the likely alternatives.

  22. Complete story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The BBC news article orignally had more information, if you search for "bnp -paribas" on http://news.google.com/, you'll see the original article was "Boy 'plotted to kill' BNP members". It was censored by the folks in charge of the BBC because they didn't want to create any sympathy for the BNP.

    This is not a mere case of possesion of materials.

    Another article is at http://ichuddersfield.icnetwork.co.uk/examiner/news/regional/tm_headline=8216-teen-tried-to-kill-bnp-supporters-8217&method=full&objectid=19904648&siteid=50060-name_page.html

    1. Re:Complete story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be public service. I freely admit to blowing up a few pumpkins and other vegetables after following the instructions from the ACB in my youth. I don't feel that ownership of information by itself should be grounds for arrest, but if he was actively planning a civil disturbance it's a fair cop. Also worth noting is that in the UK, most potassium nitrate bought on the market is rammed full of enough fire suppressants to make it almost useless, that's what we found at any rate...

  23. I might be a rappist then? by bronney · · Score: 1

    Wow flip I just googled "date rape" and it returned all these links on drugs used, the effect and timing and the mentality behind date rapes and the iraq. I feel so illegal.

    *logs onto counterstrike to return some favors*

    1. Re:I might be a rappist then? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well... you do know how to do it, and (assuming you're male) you are in possession of the necessary equipment.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. never mind... by carndearg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Never mind. We can't read the Anarchist's Cookbook over here any more but at least we can still wear a flashing LED on our clothing without having guns pointed at us.

    1. Re:never mind... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Never mind. We can't read the Anarchist's Cookbook over here any more but at least we can still wear a flashing LED on our clothing without having guns pointed at us. Would you dare to actually try this at Heathrow ?
      (I wouldn't)
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    2. Re:never mind... by carndearg · · Score: 1

      You have a point.
      Ok, I probably wouldn't. But if I did I'm pretty sure I would simply be challenged, asked to surrender the LED for examination and given it back when they had satisfied themselves it was harmless. I once had this happen to me at Guernsey airport because I was carrying the O'Reilly Coldfusion book.

    3. Re:never mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US is your reference for freedom you are a sad DNA-monitored country indeed.

      CAPTCHA: override

    4. Re:never mind... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Airport security is highly variable wherever you are. Last time I flew out of NYC, I had to spend about five minutes demonstrating that my Nokia 770 was not a bomb by showing all of its features working. The guard rather gave his real motivations away at the end, with the question 'so, do you think I should get one or wait for the N800 to be a bit cheaper then?'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:never mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once had this happen to me at Guernsey airport because I was carrying the O'Reilly Coldfusion book.

      Uh... Did they think you were going to build a coldfusion bomb in the airplane bathroom?!?
    6. Re:never mind... by carndearg · · Score: 1
      Uh... Did they think you were going to build a coldfusion bomb in the airplane bathroom?!?

      As far as I could see, yes.
      I get the impression that a side-effect of the Channel Island policy of only letting you live and work there if you're born there (the reason I (at that time) and thousands of other contractors make the daily flight) means that perhaps they end up with people in jobs like airport security who might not reach such exalted positions on the mainland.

  25. It wasn't the anarchist part he was in trouble for by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... it was the "cookbook" part.

    Those of us who have eaten British cuisine will realize fully its hazardous potential.

    Yeah, it seems innocent enough, until the kid opens a delicatessen and starts whipping up some kippers & marmite. I'm sorry, but free speech has its limits, and kippers & marmite lie squarely on the other side of it. Blech!

  26. Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Knowledge has become illegal.

    Could someone try to explain why knowing something is a crime? I know how to build bombs, I know how to create LSD, I have done neither. Why do I know it? Same reason man flew to the moon: It's there, and I wanted.

    Did he build a bomb? Did he threaten to use it? Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're getting to where Pol Pot wanted to be: The dumber you are, the better citizen you are. We're really where it is becoming dangerous to know too much. Now you don't only get to be liable for something happening to you if you ought to know what you're doing, now knowledge itself is becoming illegal.

    I, for one, don't welcome our new stupid overlords.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Did he build a bomb? Did he threaten to use it? Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?

      Actually, yes, he did plenty of other somewhat suspicious things, which taken in combination do not paint a pretty picture.

      The question is why the presentation of this affair is all about the provocatively-titled text he had downloaded, not the other evidence, which paints a pretty unfortunate picture for the kid.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Did he build a bomb? Did he threaten to use it? Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?

      Did he? No. But apparently the 'book' is not the sole reason for the arrest.

      From the Yorkshire Post:
      "A court in London was told two weeks ago that the schoolboy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is alleged to have had chemicals used for making bombs under his bed. He is accused of plotting to make bombs following a trip to Pakistan"
      "During an anti-terror raid on his home about 500g of potassium nitrate was allegedly found under his bed in the room he shared with his younger brother. Potassium nitrate is a critical oxidising component of gunpowder."

      Now...possessing potassium nitrate is not a crime (and 500g might get you a good firecracker), and owning that book is not a crime. Take the two together, along with the arrest of another kid in the same neighborhood, and the case may be that, yeah, maybe these two were planning something. Maybe the first kid coughed up the second kids name as a compatriot. I would not hazard a guess either way.

      Hopefully, they will get a reasonable judge and whichever way it goes, they will get the right verdict.

      Obviously, strenuously, completely...knowledge should never, ever be illegal. But as usual, TFA is short of the full details. And /. goes bonkers over what was said, instead of finding out more about the situation.

    3. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could someone try to explain why knowing something is a crime?

      Because as government expands in power and revenue year after year, there comes a point where further expansion is hampered by freedom of association.

      It's not only a new business opportunity for government (think of all the new crimes and new criminals, and all the tax money that will be spent) -- freedom of association is, of course, one of the arch enemies of centralized power (the special "right" to employ coercion as a business model).

    4. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he build a bomb? Did he threaten to use it? Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something? If by "Did he build a bomb?" you mean "Did he have 500g of potassium nitrate, 250g of calcium chloride, instructions to make bombs with those ingredients, and a bunch of beheading videos" then the answer is "yes", according to this article:

      Mr Arnold said: "During the search approximately 500g of potassium nitrate were found under the defendant's bed in the room he shares with his younger brother." [...] The prosecutor alleged 250g of calcium chloride was also found [...] Videos including the devil's face made in smoke following the 9/11 attacks, beheadings and references to jihad were also allegedly found at the address. Personally I think getting from this case to "knowledge itself is becoming illegal" is quite a leap of logic.
    5. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by praksys · · Score: 1

      This is a piss-poor performance by the BBC. It almost looks like the deliberately left out most of the relevant details in order to make the prosecution look unreasonable.

    6. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But if you're arrested for PLANNING something... that is thoughtcrime, and remains thoughtcrime until you actually ACT on your thoughts.

      How many people here have fantacized some personal enemy's spectacular demise? How many of you, as teenagers, wrote about how you would do away with your enemies at school? How many went so far as to load a gun, cool down a bit, and unload it again?? This isn't rare behaviour; it's not-unusual expression of typical teenage angst.

      But now every distressed teen is a criminal, merely for having evil thoughts. Best start brainwashing 'em in the cradle, it's the only way to prevent 'em from growing up to be teenage anarchists.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by jmpeax · · Score: 1

      You know how to create LSD?

      We should hook up - I'm a student in the UK and demand is rife!

      I've just had a sad realisation: I actually thought twice about posting this in the event that someone takes it seriously. I can feel my freedom draining away...

    8. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      But if you're arrested for PLANNING something...

      "Conspiracy to commit" has been a crime for a very long time, both in the US and the UK. Planning, AND collecting the materials, AND (possibly) working with someone else is a little more than teenage angst scribbled out in their diary.

      As I said, hopefully they get a rational judge, and the right verdict comes out, no matter which way it falls.

    9. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No dice. I'm not going to manufacture LSD or MDMA (which is, just as a trivia, heaps easier and requires far less knowledge and equipment). Chemistry is a lot of fun and a quite interesting pastime, but I refuse to create chemicals which I can't acquire a license for. It's a deal between me and my country. My country lets me buy and use chemicals, I promise to handle them responsibly and in a legal way.

      As long as this agreement holds, both sides can coexist. If one side breaks this agreement, the other side is no longer bound by the terms.

      In other words, call again in a year or two.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      "Could someone try to explain why knowing something is a crime?"

      It isn't, and this story doesn't claim it is.

      "Did he do anything resembling a crime besides wanting to know something?"

      Yes, had you bothered to RTFA before you chicken-littled, you would know that.

      But don't let me stop you, dystopian anti-government rants are +5 all the time here, so far be it from me to spoil your whoring.

      And please don't use try to conclude from my post I am pro anything or support anything, I'm just tired of you and those like you ranting and unnecessarily polluting the discussion with your ignorance then getting modded up because no one is smart enough to bother understanding what actually happened.

      "The dumber you are, the better citizen you are"

      I agree you are a good citizen.

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    11. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      First of all, let me congratulate you for a feat nobody managed to do with a single post, or at all, in the past years: You made it to my foe list. Not easy, admitted (the number of people I consider foes alone tells you that), but somehow, you just know how to troll. A rare art today, most just don't bother to find out the finer point and the buttons to press on their targets, trying a blanket approach of insults that usually just make me giggle. You still know the good old ways of trolling, and I am actually even a little glad there is still someone who preserves that old art. So far, my theory was that all the old trolls grew up in the years they spend on the internet and the new material... well, kids ain't what they used to be.

      Glad there's at least one who didn't grow up.

      So, aside of that, and back on track, even as a troll you deserve an answer (for the reasons given in the first paragraph, I think such a rare occasion should be treasured). Now, what does the article tell us? That he's charged with "possession of material for terrorist purposes" and for "possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism".

      That makes him a terrorist? Did he actually harm anyone? If that's a crime, then, well, I should probably reconsider my next vacation in London. I have both, too. I am in possession of material that can be used for "terrorist purposes". Legally so. Don't think you're not, just because you don't know. Maybe you happen to have a bottle of Aspirin nearby? Congrats, you got an important precursor for TNP. The rest isn't as easy to obtain, but if you know where and how to ask, you can get it without rising any suspicion. Depending on your hobbies, you might even have them.

      And whether information on how to do stuff is illegal is pretty much the topic of the whole story here on /.

      So if there's no further evidence against him, I stand by my statement. Maybe there's more to it than we know, and maybe he has a criminal record. But even then going overboard and calling it "terrorism" can at best make me giggle. Terrorism requires a bit of coordination, and even more so it requires some kind of goal he wants to achive with violence, something that I can't see at all. Especially not if he tries to draw any kind of useful information from the Anarchist's Cookbook.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The problem with "conspiracy to commit" is that the PTB can draw the line anywhere they want; indeed, that has been a problem in some parts of the world in the past. As the gov't becomes more paranoid, that line gets closer and closer to the point where disgruntled workers don't dare grouse about it over a beer.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The problem with "conspiracy to commit" is that the PTB can draw the line anywhere they want; indeed, that has been a problem in some parts of the world in the past.

      Right. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. If some dude is standing on a crowded bus, with a vest full of C-4, his finger on the trigger...do we have to wait before they are all a pink mist before arresting him? Is he still in the 'planning' phase, because he hasn't actually done it yet?
      Millions wonder why the 9/11 terrorists weren't stopped before. Well...up until the moment they actually took over the cockpit, it was merely "conspiracy to commit". Should they have been arrested before?

    14. Re:Ok, we arrived at thoughtcrimes by Reziac · · Score: 1

      At what point do you arrest 'em? When they enter the country, or when they walk onto the target plane? somewhere between? ISTM that *some* level of positive action should be a requirement, because otherwise the line gets moved downward, and now we have nonsense like "no water bottles on board" because OMG we're all potential terrorists.

      If someone puts together a bomb, drives to the target, has second thoughts, and goes home without doing anything, is that a crime? should it be??

      =======

      I recall reading an article about Soviet sleeper agents in the U.S., who had been here for years or even decades, and when called upon to act for their Red masters, found all sorts of excuses why they couldn't do so today, or tomorrow, or the next day ... life here had become too pleasant, why upset matters? So... should we have arrested those spies when they first crossed the border?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  27. No it isn't, thank you very much. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This may confuse many an american who live in a country that isn't free but they think it is. In europe we know we ain't got many of the supposed freedoms of the US of A and more or less, we like it that way. In for instance Holland the rules about banned books is VERY clear, it is the goverment that has banned them and those books are banned and ONLY those books. NO OTHER BOOKS CAN BE BANNED BY ANYONE ELSE!

    No withholding funding from libraries that stock books somebody doesn't like. No pressure on printers, no self-censorship. IF the goverment wants to ban something, they got to come out and do it openly.

    The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding. An even greater evil exists in self-censorship. It allows the politicians to wash their hands off any anti-freedom policy while still having censorship.

    Freespeech does not exist (shout fire in a crowded room to see just how free you are) so why even pretend it does exist? Far better to have extremely clear rules about what can and what cannot be said and make it very clear WHO wants it to be that way.

    IF the british goverment wants to get rid of the page 3 girl, they would have to do it themselves, directly and show it to the public. In the US, the goverment would just hint at regulation, then the industry would self-regulate and nobody would be any the wiser.

    Do I agree with the cookbook being under the terrorism law? No, but at least it is clear who is responsible for it (Labour party/Blair), it is clearly banned, not just not in stock at the local library. You go and live in lala land screaming to yourselve that you got freespeech. I prefer to live in the real world and KNOW what is forbidden and who forbids it. At least that gives me a target.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by vidarh · · Score: 2, Informative
      Do I agree with the cookbook being under the terrorism law? No, but at least it is clear who is responsible for it (Labour party/Blair), it is clearly banned, not just not in stock at the local library.

      No, it is not clearly banned. The law on purpose was made so vague that it allows the government to claim almost anything as being in violation of the law, and leave it to the court to sort out whether or not they think it's ridiculous. Lets really hope the courts actually have the sense to reign this in (one of the redeeming factors of the UK legal system is that in the face of power hungry politicians there is a history of judges that are willing to blatantly look for loopholes to reinterpret the laws more narrowly than they were intended).

      To show just how confusing this situation in, notice that this boy was charged, but as someone else has pointed out the book is for sale at Amazon.

    2. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The idea occurs that you can buy books on Amazon as gifts for people. People who receive these gifts end up possessing them. Just a thought.

    3. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the rest of your post (until I succeed in parsing it out):

      The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.

      First, give me an example of this happening.
      Second, (if this does happen), the reason is that while speech may be free as in liberty, it isn't free in price. Someone has the right to say "Jews eat babies!" and write a book all about it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the public is obligated to buy lots of books to stock up libraries. (That being said, my local library seems to have most of David Icke's works available).

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    4. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

      Good thing our congressional library has all those books.

    5. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      IF the British government wants to get rid of the page 3 girl, they would have to do it themselves, directly and show it to the public. In the US, the government would just hint at regulation, then the industry would self-regulate and nobody would be any the wiser.

      This just isn't true. read here

      The UK and most European countries have very broad amounts of self censorship. That the AC can't be found in many libraries does not mean it cannot be found or that it is illegal to carry. Granted, the fact you don't realize why yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal means you have no idea about laws that exist in all countries that claim to be free. Your speech is free as long as you do not willfully endanger a group or incite people to do illegal things. i.e. the KKK has a march through my home town almost every year(or at least used to when I was younger) and that was completely allowed. Police would even be sent out to see that they were not harassed or put in danger. But if their leader stood up and told everyone to go kill the blacks, Mexicans, and catholics then he would be charged.

      Yeah, it sucks to have self censorship. It's generally better to take the bull by the horns, but don't act like it's something unique to the US(or that something Europe is in any way free from). But it seems europe has far more severe censorship laws implemented by the governments of those respective countries. Germany probably has the biggest censorship laws in existence(in reference to anything to do with the Nazis).

    6. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by athdemo · · Score: 1

      Freespeech does not exist (shout fire in a crowded room to see just how free you are)

      I stopped reading immediately after this.

    7. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking it is not yelling fire in a theater that is against the law. Rather, it is causing through your speech the very real threat of bodily harm in the ensuing chaos from making people think they are in immediate threat of harm. And just the same, for an incitement to riot charge to stick you have to be advocating actions that can( and really must) be taken immediately in order to work. Otherwise it falls back under the idea of free speech.

    8. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      No withholding funding from libraries that stock books somebody doesn't like. No pressure on printers, no self-censorship. IF the goverment wants to ban something, they got to come out and do it openly.

      The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding. An even greater evil exists in self-censorship. It allows the politicians to wash their hands off any anti-freedom policy while still having censorship.


      Yes, in the US, the "government" other than the FCC rarely actually censors anything. ;) (O.k. there are those pre-existing rules that prevent cussing and porn over the RF spectrum and most aren't even aware that self censor ship is occuring.) In the US, we have sub cultures of every flavor that have their private wars on some content. The religion folks don't like a ton of stuff, but they generally aim at school libraries where they can be very successful at keeping some content out of the schools. The anti-religion folks that don't want any religion in any some what government relating thing have been working at censoring religion. The greens are censoring anti-green content. Don't get me started on the global warming crowd. I think all sides in that conflict have decided to flood the world with content and use name calling against their opposites. Walmart does it simply by refusing to stock content that fits their guidelines.

      We'd rather have this type of many sub group attempted censorship rather than any government censorship. Generally, subgroups step on each others toes. Take a look at Walmart's guide lines. They sell alot of adult R rated content in both video and in games; they also simply don't stock what the founders and the mainstream US generally don't like. The content for XXX adult stuff exists and can be bought, but you aren't going to find it at a Walmart. One of the big reason's anime is popular with the 17-20 crowd in the US is that some of it has alot of nudity but is only rated NC-17 because its a cartoon. ;) We've all got weird values, but you learn to work around others that don't believe in your values.

      Heck, we have Christian book stores and you can bet that they are self censored. You seem to view this as something that is wrong. I don't.

    9. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr but things are not much different here in the USA. A friend of mine downloaded this "cookbook" from a website a few years back (think 7 or so years) and got a visit from the FBI.

      Now, if back before 9/11 it was enough to get a visit from the FBI, do you think now it is enough to make it onto the do not fly list, have your home internet and telephones tapped, and all sorts of other wonderful things the government can do now?

      The difference is here, we've already done away with those archaic things you call "trials".

    10. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      i don't think it's very clear that it's banned if amazon.co.uk has it, under apparently several names.

      would kind of suck to buy one for easy and fun home chemistry experiments and get thrown to jail and amazon getting away with it.

      http://amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/026-8018305-4217266?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=anarchist+cookbook&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      First, give me an example of this happening.


      How about examples where the secret services demand to know who borrowed what title? That gives me worse chills. Lists of names worry me.


      -FL

    12. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I think you are a bit mistaken here.

      Preventing access to publications is wholly different than throwing people in jail for years because they have read or written a particular work. In most European countries, simply writing that you believe the Holocaust is a fiction will land you in jail for many years. That alone is far beyond anything that has ever happened in the United States in the entire history of our nation.

      There is simply no comparison, and your argument directly disregards this fact.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    13. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by Stefanwulf · · Score: 1

      Someone mod the parent up...that anyone can read these books at taxpayer expense through the library of congress is a very strong argument against the existence of government censorship.

      http://www.loc.gov/

    14. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      The greens are censoring anti-green content. Citation for this, please?

      You seem to view this as something that is wrong. I don't. You've described niche markets, equated them (ridiculously) with censorship, then suggested that you're a hero for thinking free markets are good. Here's an expansion of your post, using food instead of books: "McDonald's doesn't sell Whoppers, and even though you may think that's wrong. I don't." In fact, nothing in your post is censorship. WalMart doesn't censor anything except maybe it's employees -- it doesn't have the power. Christian bookstores also don't censor anything. REFUSAL TO SELL CERTAIN ITEMS IS NOT CENSORSHIP; IT'S FREEDOM. You've also said that the government rarely censors anything, yet you give no support for this despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (google government and censorship).
    15. Re:No it isn't, thank you very much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was true we would be one step behind fascism! Fortunately, as far as I know there isn't that kind of censorship in any of the EU countries.

      Of course, if someone feels offended by your publicly expressed opinion (which is very likely to happen with your example), he can choose to pursue his rights through legal procedures, but that is a totally different think than saying "you will land in jail" just for expressing an opinion, no matter how outrageous by any standards it might be. There are so many complex and vague laws, that, in practice, anyone can sue anyone for plenty of thinks in any country with a western-type system of justice.
  28. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by jackharrer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you heard about Darwin Awards?

    --

    "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
  29. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by debilo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes"
    Quit fucking sensationalizing everything.
    Have you ever tried British food? I wouldn't trust any cookbook originating from or used in the UK, that's 100% pure terrorism right there.
  30. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> "The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes"

    > Quit fucking sensationalizing everything.

    This is the UK government, what do you expect? They are slowly inventing thier own kind of newspeak, where highly emotive language can be used to justify anything.

    The best one was last year when some poor guys house was accidentally raided by mistake. The police burst in, accidentally shot him and labeled him a "terrorist suspect" (rather than just a normal "suspect"). When it started to become clear that they had the wrong address, they decided he was also a paedophile and investigated him for that as well. A TERRORIST PAEDOPHILE!!!

    In the end, they dropped all charges.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  31. I had obtained a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook by el_munkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    before the Columbine massacre and the rest of the bullshit that was going on in that era. I brought it, in printed form, to school and studied it whenever my obligations to school had been fulfilled.

    Yes, the intent of the manual was malicious, but I think I gained some insight from it. The computer stuff was obsolete by the time I had it, and the chemical stuff was shaky, at best. However, it inspired me to study science and the potential for change it possessed.

    This file contributed more to my love of science than any teacher or professor I've had. Prosecuting kids for being inquisitive is a surefire way to lose one's edge in the natural sciences. Goddammit, don't fuck this up as we have.

  32. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing special about this book, other than reactionary types getting upset as soon as they see the title. People have been building bombs for a long time, just ask the IRA. All you need is a college level chemistry book. Oh no, turds like you will want to ban them now. Oh no, but the physics... Ban that too! Ah, but the maths.. BAN BAN BAN.

    Pretending knowledge doesn't exist is far more dangerous than people being aware of of such things.

  33. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by bytesex · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, what good has ever come out of your grandfather ? It isn't the purpose of a book to be good; it's the purpose of a book to convey ideas, no matter how repulsive you find them. In the same vein; it wasn't the purpose of your grandfather to be good, it was his purpose to procreate. Questions of purpose in a universal context are always in vain.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  34. Then maybe I shouldn't say... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 0

    ...that you should mix equal parts Polystyrene(Styrofoam) and Petrol together to form napalm.
    Wouldn't want to force our British friends to accidentally get arrested for unlawful knowledge!

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    1. Re:Then maybe I shouldn't say... by DJPenguin · · Score: 1

      I actually tried this when I was a kid, all I got was a smelly lump of goo that didn't do much at all. Couldn't even get it to burn!

      Hope my parents aren't reading this! :D

    2. Re:Then maybe I shouldn't say... by julesh · · Score: 1

      all I got was a smelly lump of goo that didn't do much at all

      You're not using enough petrol, then. The stuff should flow slowly, about the consistency of melted chocolate. There shouldn't be lumps. And it ignites really easily.

      Of course, it ain't napalm, but that's a different story entirely.

    3. Re:Then maybe I shouldn't say... by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      Strange as it sounds, I found that powdered sugar produces a much stickier, fluid gel. you just have to make it at least a day in advance and skim the fuel oil used off the top ( no all of it goes into making the gel)

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    4. Re:Then maybe I shouldn't say... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 0

      It's called Super Napalm, or Napalm-B.

      It might not have naphthalene or palmitate, but its just as effective!

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    5. Re:Then maybe I shouldn't say... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 0

      The more Styrofoam you use, the harder it is to ignite (and the harder it is to wash away).

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  35. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not even the point. The point is that knowledge itself is never dangerous. It's dangerous, though, to start labeling knowledge as dangerous.

    Because the core question of the problem is, who gets to label? Who gets to dictate what knowlege is harmful and which is good? Who may know what and why? Do you want a system in place that limits what you may learn and to what extent?

    Do you think it would stop at explosives? I'm fairly sure the next thing banned would be books on the creation of drugs and medication. Close behind is pretty much anything dealing with biochemistry. Not far behind there will be knowledge for exploiting security flaws in real life locks, as well as computer programs. "Hacking" guides and tools (Germany leapt there already). Manuals explaining how fireworks and firearms work.

    And so on. Where do you think it will stop? I doubt it will. After all the "dangerous" things are forbidden, companies will muscle in and do their worst to get all the knowledge outlawed that's required to escape their stranglehold, to protect their IP and markets.

    Bottom line, when you open the door for outlawing knowledge, you'll soon only be permitted to know what's necessary to do your job and nothing else.

    And, personally, I could rather live with 17 year olds reading the AC and getting a virtual boner over the (partly phony) "cool things" they could cook up. Knowledge alone has never hurt anyone. What it comes down to is the question how the knowledge is applied. If anyone, blame the person using it if he uses knowledge to commit a crime.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. Re: Indefinitely. by infolation · · Score: 1

    Fortunately the boy was charged in the UK. So he can be held for *only* 28 days.

  37. Does this include science textbooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That tell you how to make gunpowder as a lab?

  38. Re:It wasn't the anarchist part he was in trouble by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    >kippers & marmite
    Sounds like a typical Pizza as eaten by Shaggy & Scooby. I just love the combinations they come up with and having a 6yo Scooby loving kid, I can enjoy them all over again.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  39. Anarchist's Cookbook saved my life by graymocker · · Score: 5, Funny

    One day when I was but a lad of 16, my girlfriend dumped me for a pickup-driving football player who beat me up in gym class. In the subsequent evening alone with my thoughts I wore out my The Cure vinyl by overplaying it, so that the hissing, scratching hiss of the record player formed perfect accompaniment for the wailing and lamentation of my punctured and bleeding heart. As the record starting to skip and I heard Robert Smith wail "-enever I'm al-" over and over, I realized two things:

    1. I really #%^%$! hated The Cure.

    2. I was going to slit my wrists that very night. It was going to be just like that scene in The Royal Tenenbaums, with Elliot Smith and everything. Elliot Smith is way better than the cure, like, he stuck a freaking knife in his chest, man. Oh wait, maybe I should do that instead...

    But then, as I was surfing online for inventive ways to kill myself, I found the Anarchist's Cookbook. That book changed my life forever. Here was someone who was clearly more pathetic than me, and who had obviously failed chemistry to boot. I got a C in chem! If in my life I could say to myself "at least I wasn't that idiot who wrote the Anarchist's Cookbook," that was a life worth living. From that moment on, I renounced all satanic rock music, discovered Christ and placed my life with the Lord, and now I run a successful business as a reseller of fine artist Thomas Kinkade's work. All thanks to the Anarchist's Cookbook. Thank you Lord, for sending me the Anarchist's Cookbook in my time of need.

    1. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook saved my life by lahvak · · Score: 1

      From that moment on, I renounced all satanic rock music, discovered Christ and placed my life with the Lord, and now I run a successful business as a reseller of fine artist Thomas Kinkade's work. All thanks to the Anarchist's Cookbook.

      Shit! The book really is evil! You changed my mind, I agree with the grandparent, the book must be wiped from the face of the planet!

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook saved my life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had my full support regarding the validity of the book. Till you started the religious crap. That showed me that you're still an idiot.

    3. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook saved my life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whooooosh!

    4. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook saved my life by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      Why is it that people who are attempting to kill themselves find that the "god" concept will "save them"? It simply dooms them to be the walking dead followers of the Zombie Jesus cult who don't and can't think for themselves as a result of their wacked out pre-middle ages belief system?

      Since you can't prove there is a god, gods, or even God, you can't prove any statements about said super natural beings. Thus every statement you know or spout from your mouth hole about said super natural being or beings is pure make believe nonsense.

      When the belief-stricken and the faith-stricken conceed that point they then put forward the weak argument (at least weak to people who can actually critically think for themselves) that the belief in god, gods, or God, must be taken on "faith" without any evidence.

      Furthermore, when pushed further some will even suggest the silly notion - actually a cult indoctrination technique - that you must ask the universe for guidance from God and only then will "he" reveal himself to you. That is a sure path to a couple of laughs or if you're of a non-critical mind a membership in the cult of God.

      The very notion of God is evil, especially the God that is written about in the Bible, Koran and Torra. What an evil god that is (see Dawkin's assessment of that particular god).

      "Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven."
      -- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

      It's was a sad day for you and those around you when you entered you delusion about Christ.

      Please return to being a natural human being.

  40. Where does it end? by Smerity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where does it end?
    This doesn't directly effect me as I don't live in the UK, but sure enough these same undercurrents are affecting my country as well. Terrorism is pushing rationality to breaking point. When I was 12 or 13 I read the Anarchist's Cookbook as well - curiosity gets you at that age. I had no plans to actually use anything from it, and it's unlikely that this kid did either. It's the same interests that lead me to the summer camp that taught us how to make gun powder (shock horror you say in this post 9/11 world!) - science, chemistry and that little pyromaniac who lives inside of every one of us.

    The real worry that is brought forth here is that in this case merely the possession of knowledge is a crime. I'm sorry, but a chemistry book I have lists gunpowder and some pretty volatile reactions too - will they charge me with possession of that? I have another Manifesto - am I now a political dissident too? As they whittle down the prerequisites to treated as criminals we shall soon discover more and more of us come under scrutiny...

    "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

    PS. Sorry to Godwin this, but in this case it's actually relevant. =]

    1. Re:Where does it end? by xmedar · · Score: 1

      If you're going to Godwin the thread I might as well add a couple of pics of Nazi book burning-

      Pic 1
      Pic 2

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    2. Re:Where does it end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't directly effect me as I don't live in the UK

      Only somebody's parents can directly effect them. You mean affect.

  41. Poor Man's James Bond by gambolt · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.lastgasp.com/d/21573/

    Uncle Festor's Silent Death looks fun:

    http://www.unclefesterbooks.com/book_sd.html

    Any book on pyrotechnics manufacture likely has multiple uses as well.

    rec.pyrotechnics FAQ:

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pyrotechnics-faq/

    All kinds of fun:

    http://www.textfiles.com/anarchy/

  42. And we all know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... what happens in the UK 28 days later... 8(

  43. Careful observers will notice... by Angostura · · Score: 1

    ... the words "in part" in the summary, suggesting that actually possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook is not terrorism.

    1. Re:Careful observers will notice... by Mock · · Score: 1

      And careful observers who have actually READ the article will notice that it is specifically about the book, saying quite plainly that possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook is a crime.

  44. Perhaps we should mail ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A copy into the possession of every MP in parliament?

  45. So basically.. by Moisteri · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..the kid committed a 'thought crime'?

  46. Hey, libertarians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Guess what, you insufferable nincompoops? Our government is itself the product of a market system. Cities like New York, London, and San Francisco are successful precisely *because* of their enormous governments--they compete for capital, talent, and prestige against cities with small, ineffectual governments that are unable to effectively lure and corral said capital, talent, and prestige. And as goes the city, so go city-states and nations: Somalia, being a libertarian paradise, is a rather unpleasant place to live for non-ideologues. Somalians, those who can, vote with their feet and leave.

    Now go suckle Ayn Rand's rotten tits some more and leave the rest of us alone, you stupid fucking Paultards.

    1. Re:Hey, libertarians! by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Somalia, a libertarian paradise? Right... and Steve Jobs suddenly decided to release the iPhone unlocked and open for all. Riiiight...

      --
      OSx86 FTW
  47. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ouch!

    I don't remember hearing about that one. Do you have a link?

    It sounds about right though. A mistake by the police seems to be covered up with a different offense. Recently the police raided the house opposite me with some terrorism related charge, finding nothing they put the guy away for having a marijuana plant. To this day the house is boarded up while the guy sits in jail without having been formally charged with anything, which is allowed under new terrorism laws.

  48. Shouldn't we have people to make that decision? by Chmcginn · · Score: 5, Funny

    At what point do the dangers of censorship overcome the dangers of content? I'd say 16 years of age, but I'll settle for 18 or 21.

    It's almost like children should have some kind of guardian who is responsible for making decisions for them until they're of a certain age.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Shouldn't we have people to make that decision? by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, it's a shame that nature didn't provide them with a couple of those by default. Intelligent Design my ass.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Shouldn't we have people to make that decision? by servognome · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a shame that nature didn't provide them with a couple of those by default
      half the time those guardians barely take responsibility for themselves, let alone an inexperienced child.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    3. Re:Shouldn't we have people to make that decision? by tooler · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir. One of my favorite ironic comebacks when people start lamenting about saving the children or wealth transfer to single parents.

    4. Re:Shouldn't we have people to make that decision? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Where I live even if a kid is lucky enough to still have two guardians in the same house, those guardians have had the power to make decisions over the kids life pretty much removed by a PC nanny government. Anything that might make the kid less than ecstatic is seen as child abuse, and the guardian risks a visit from a government-endorsed posse of kidnappers dubbed Child, Youth and Family Support.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  49. Dog food? by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    TFA article doens't mention if either kid has ties to any terrorist orgs or what. Maybe both kids have a history of wanting to kill. It could also be a bunch of lawmakers caught up in their own interpretation of sensibility. Don't make a bunch of assumptions only knowing part of the facts. Save that for witch hunting.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  50. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thats true unfortunately.

    After the 7/11 thing in the US, Blair tried to use terrorist Retoric to get more funding for his pet projects. (ID cards ect)
    Having spend 50 years with Irish Terrorists, the UK population werent quite ready at that time to swallow it.

    The only way people swallowed all this crap, is if its liberally spread with a layer of bullshit.
    Unfortunately, it looks like they are.

  51. Re:I had obtained a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, same here. I even showed it to the librarian who thought it was "funny". If I did that today, I'd be in prison.

  52. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by teslar · · Score: 1

    Ask yourself: What good has come of this book?
    Interesting uses for banana peels :)
  53. Order of evaluation problem... by duh_lime · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The English language is too imprecise. As geeks and CS types, we're accustomed to precision in specification. There's a big difference between

    1. (possession of material) for terrorist purposes

    and

    2. possession of (material for terrorist purposes)

    where material = information

    It's not clear from the post which of these is the intended meaning of the law. From the article, it seems the guy was doing a lot more than just reading. So, it sounds like #1 is the basis for the arrest, and #2 might not have been applied yet (at least not by this case). It does make you wonder if "reading in a web browser" would fit #2...

    --

    IANAL, but I play one occasionally just so I know what it would be like to hate myself.

    1. Re:Order of evaluation problem... by Mock · · Score: 1

      Read the article.

      Quote:

      The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year.

      The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

      #1 can be interpreted two ways.
      #2 means that mere possession of information is a crime.

  54. Duty free shops are in violation then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many duty free shops now publish online catalogs of what people might expect to find in their shops at the airport. The simple possession of this information provides any willing terrorist with a manifest of all the materials they have available to assemble fully functional bombs or at least combustible devices once past the security checks of the airport.

    I won't go into details, but yesterday while in the duty free area of a normal international airport, I located all the materials needed walking from the security to the gate that I would need to cause an explosion. Electronics, medium to high concentration alcohol (some "drinkable" spirits and perfumes for example), pressurizable containment, trinkets containing either flint or similar stones, and for a bit of pizzaz, gems (no mandatory function, but if you're gonna do it, might as well do it in class).

    So the way I see it is, any terrorist in training could simply go online, check out the materials they'll have available to them, what they cost, where to buy them, etc... and build a test unit. Then they can order a ticket, walk into the airport, do some shopping, board the plane, pay a visit to the bathroom and come out ready to go.

    When is the government going to learn that the anarchist cookbook more typically is used by teenagers trying to make cherry bombs to play with in the back yard or to drop in garbage cans to scare people.

    If they really want to make a dent in the terrorists, maybe they'd be better off banning chemistry classes from high schools and universities. Maybe a good old book burning would help as well. I've heard rumors that the libraries often carry encyclopedias, those should be censored too. The local liquor stores should be closed at once and perfumes should be regulated. I find these places to be useful for any prospective bomb builder. Banning batteries should also be effective, those little things are at the center of almost every triggering mechanism.

    1. Re:Duty free shops are in violation then by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      If they really want to make a dent in the terrorists, maybe they'd be better off banning chemistry classes from high schools and universities.

      No, to make a real dent, use a ball peen hammer.

      Or go after the training camps. I still hear news about how so and so group has training camps in such and such place. OK. Uh, can we, like, go get them, or something? I recall that was the talk at the start of the so called War on Terror. We'd go in with covert teams, come out of the darkness without warning and bring the terror back to the terrorists. Shit, I was all for *that* approach.

  55. terror is a tactic, and we use it too by some+damn+guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The police, the military, and my parents are terrorist organizations too. Not saying that in a provocative way either (except in the case of my parents ;) )- terrorism is a tactic, not a moral position. You scare the shit out of your adversary, in order to get your way while minimizing or avoiding direct confrontation. Remember shock and awe? That the heck do you think that was? Operation 'Terrorize the Iraqi Army' wouldn't have been so politically correct, but we wanted to scare them so they gave up.

    Police live by this tactic, they don't call it that but they know they can't catch everyone so they grab someone and throw the book at them once and a while to send a message.

    And take nuclear terrorism, we (the US) INVENTED it. We didn't have enough bombs to level Japan, but we acted like we did and pretty much everyone turning blue in the face over 'the terrorists' these days would say it was a good thing (it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up). Of course, that wasn't the only city we leveled. Some we leveled more or less to send a message. Some cities weren't great military or industrial centers and were relatively untouched in targeted bombing, so they just made that much more of a statement when the whole thing burned to the ground one night in a massive firestorm.

    At any rate, someone in the government needs to look up 'moral superiority' in a dictionary fast. All this emphasis on 'Terrorism (tm)' just makes us look like hypocrites, when we, in strict numerical terms have killed far more old men, women and children than Al Queda ever has (not that they're not working on it...). That's just a fact. Americans have killed lots of innocent people and when you look at the justifications, you cannot deny that many of these people were killed simply to scare, demoralize and disorient our enemies. Sure we were fighting Nazis, but we forget sometimes 'the good war' was pretty much the most unholy fucking disaster to ever befall mankind. Taking the lesser evil, even the far lesser one, requires one to do evil, and we only came out 'clean' by comparison. Al Queda are horrible people and they need to die, but just saying they're terrorists and we're not isn't going to convince anyone other than ourselves.

    Al Queda chops people's fucking heads off if they shave or sneak a sip of whiskey. It should NOT have been hard to convince the Arab world these people are a dead end. You see, it's a simple (but not easy) war to win- the moderates who make up the majorities of these countries turn against the extremists. We just had to help them- and yet we couldn't even do that. It was a PR war all along and we lost it so fast no one noticed. We've been so determined to hunt grasshoppers with our howitzers, we missed a pretty obvious point: the average modern war, even one conducted with restraint, is a absolute PR nightmare. So much so, I often wonder if Al Queda WANTED us to invade Afghanistan.

    Soft power used to be our greatest asset, you know, the Statue of Liberty, Elvis records, cheeseburgers. That's what really brought down the Iron Curtain, enough people finally saw us and said, 'screw this, we're doing it their way'. Our enemies were dying to hang themselves and when they had enough rope the alternative for their oppressed people was obvious.

    Nowadays in the Muslim word, seeing your broken Government and thinking it would be great to do things the American way is a good way to get your head chopped off. So if they fall, it sure won't be the democratic types taking over.... We've conducted the worst advertising campaign for democracy in the history of democracy and are clearly our own worst enemy.

    1. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We didn't have enough bombs to level Japan, but we acted like we did and pretty much everyone turning blue in the face over 'the terrorists' these days would say it was a good thing (it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up). If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life.

      Any wonder why the US refuses to allow its citizens to be tried by the International Court?
    2. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians. The atomic bombs were dropped to make them surrender to the USA instead, and to make their surrender unconditional.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by bentcd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. But not unconditionally, which is what the US needed. Even /with/ the bombs, they wouldn't surrender /entirely/ unconditionally (they insisted on keeping the Emperor) but it was apparantly good enough for the US.

      Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. And the hardliner generals were ready to have him replaced should he decide to do so.

      The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life. That assessment is made in ignorance of how Japan may have developed had they been allowed a conditional surrender with more leeway on their part. Their complete disarmament, for instance, would have been unlikely to take place. If their expansionist hawks had been allowed to help form its future policies, this might very well have cost more SE Asian lives in the following decades than the nukes did.
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    4. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by michaelmuffin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We didn't have enough bombs to level Japan, but we acted like we did and pretty much everyone turning blue in the face over 'the terrorists' these days would say it was a good thing (it probably did save millions of Japanese lives, you have to admit that- they weren't exactly ready to give up). If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life. I'll second that and point out that the reason we used the nukes on Japan was to send a message to Russia not to challenge the US militarily anytime soon.
    5. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 1

      Your point reminds me of something a friend has said in the past: history is subjective, and typically written by the winner.

      --
      Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    6. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad there is at least one other person in the US who actually notices that the US has gone on a war against a tactic -- as if it were a War Against Lying -- notably a tactic that the US is infamous for using itself, and often, and recently (as OP noted, the US publically and deliberately used terror as a tactic in the Iraq invasion -- "shock and awe" being its codename).

    7. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by ckedge · · Score: 1

      > and to make their surrender unconditional.

      That part isn't insignificant. Have you read their proposed terms?

      No occupation.
      No change to their government.
      They prosecute their own war criminals.

      Yeah, sure. After you've murdered 10,000,000 civilians in other countries, after special unit 932 has vivisected 10,000 chinese civilians while alive and conscious, while you're threatening to kill another 250,000 Americans in an invasion and 10,000,000 of your own civilians in a suicidal last stand (or alternatively starve 10% of your populcation to death as we embargo you) - yeah, let's negotiate your retarded fucking terms in order to save 100,000 other different lives.

      Even after 2 atomic bombs and threats of LOTS more, the emperor had to demand 4 days latter that his still evenly divided cabinet draw up his surrender speach. (Oct 9, 2nd bomb, emperor says they should surrender and cabinet kinda agrees, Oct 14 cabinet still discussing things, emperor DEMANDS they finish writing his surrender speach - which they finally do - having never heard their emperor demand something before).

      If it wasn't for Hirohito (sorry, Emperor Shouwa) - the war would have easily claimed AT LEAST a few more million Japanese dead due to starvation alone.

    8. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians. The atomic bombs were dropped to make them surrender to the USA instead, and to make their surrender unconditional.

      So you agree, unconditionally, that the atomic bomb saved millions of Japanese lives. Say what you will about the US now, a surrender to FDR kicks the shit out of living under Stalin.

    9. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by servognome · · Score: 1

      If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life.
      If you study history you'd know even after the first atomic bomb was dropped, there was still a dead-lock amongst the military authority on whether to surrender. While surrender was being contemplated, it wasn't as if the allied planes were just sitting there waiting for a reply. Constant bombings, including devastating firebombings were continuing. Even after the emperor moved for surrender there was a coup attempt. So even then there were high ranking officials who were opposed to surrender.
      Surrender isn't just something that happens, i is a complex political process both internally and internationally. Look at peace discussions in the middle east, how many times have different sides "made peace" yet the same conflicts keep occurring.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    10. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Say what you will about the US now, a surrender to HST kicks the sh*t out of living under Stalin.

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      I come here for the love
    11. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians.


      Yes, they did. In retrospect, that wasn't too bright. The Russians had visions of grabbing as much of Japan as possible like they had with Germany and Eastern Europe and made sure nobody else learned of the surrender offer. In the end, of course, they had to settle for just grabbing half of Korea. It's very possible that the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima not only saved millions of Japanese lives, but that it also prevented a "North Japan" from being carved out as a Communist dictatorship.

      Chris Mattern
    12. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D'oh. Though it is still true that a surrender to FDR kicks the shit out of living under Stalin.

    13. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians.

      I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. A few Japanese, without the knowledge of the Goverment or authority to negotiate had discussed the possibility of surrender to the Russians with the Russians. The Goverment, or at least that part with the authority to so negotiate was unaware of any such discussions with the Russians. Tojo and the War Cabinet, who had the authority to make such agreements, not only had not made such and agreement - they were utterly unaware that the farcial negotiations for surrender had even taken place.
    14. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by LrdDimwit · · Score: 0

      Al Qaeda was convinced, after our disastrous operations in Somalia, that after 9/11 we would turn tail and hide. Essentially they thought we were weak, and that we would cave at the first sight of American blood. They were, by and large, wrong in this. Which is why, as much as I loathe Bush and all his policies, we cannot afford to fail in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    15. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      FDR's New Deal is a page directly from Stalin's play book.

      --
      I come here for the love
    16. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      "I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result. The Japanese had already offered to surrender (though not unconditionally) to the Russians. The atomic bombs were dropped to make them surrender to the USA instead, and to make their surrender unconditional."

      Normally, I go apeshit when I see this level of ignorance, but this time I'll try something different.

      You claim they were ready to surrender to the Russians, and despite having the time and opportunity to do so, they didn't. Hmmm, seem to be a glaring hole on your theory there somewhere.

      Second, had you bothered to investigate beyond what was necessary to confirm your pre-existing bias, you'd realize the conditional surrender was unacceptable (and when you are the aggressor, losing means you don't get to name your terms, keep it in mind if you choose to be the aggressor).

      Maybe it JUST POSSIBLE that it did indeed save many lives while ALSO having the secondary (and far less important) effects you claim.

      And by the way, you just said it and pretended it was true while making the incredibly snide comment that "I keep hearing this repeated, but it doesn't become true as a result". I think you need to apply your own standard to your post before denouncing others for what you did yourself.

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    17. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by pjabardo · · Score: 1

      The only condition was the maintenance of the Emperor which ended up happening anyway. Japan's shipping fleet was destroyed. They had absolutely no raw materials least of all oil. They were going to have problems with food. Source: History of the Second World War - Liddell Hart.

      Anyway, you are missing the point. This unconditional surrender was a small factor and other reasons were behind. The parent's argument is still valid even if your assertions are correct.

    18. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by SIIHP · · Score: 1

      Why is it so hard for you people to see that it was both?

      Japan DID NOT surrender. No matter your opinion, claiming "they were ready" speaks to knowledge that none of us have. ANd frankly, if they were ready, got the fuck bombed out of them, and then WAITED TO BE BOMBED AGAIN before surrendering, you have to wonder exactly how "ready" they were.

      So any argument that bases its central point on something that has been prove to be false is hard to swallow.

      Go ahead and tell me they were ready, then I'll ask why they allowed themselves to be bombed more than once, and we'll watch your argument fall apart in a shower of half-truths and justifications that fail to prove your point.

      --
      I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    19. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment. Right on the target of evil terrorism in the world: Bush, Cheney, Blair, Governments, and least we not forget gorilla organizations such as the evil Al Queda. They are all evil mass killers who need to be brought to justice in a series of war crimes tribunals.

      Actually, Bush, Cheney, Blair and most Governments actually provide a lot of public evidence of their crimes so convicting them with their own propaganda broadcasts should be easy.

    20. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      Yes, they forgot - or didn't know - that Americans are blood thirsty when it comes to Revenge and will use whatever means is at their disposal to achieve their religiously inspired and justified revenge intensity to kill blindly. It almost doesn't matter if they kill the people who inflicted 911 upon them (assuming the mainstream view of 911 is correct that is) since what matters in revenge is simply killing those who might be responsible. Once they started their revenge killing they just kept going and will keep going for decades since they gotta take revenge for each new dead of their own. It's a meat grinding machine let loose upon the world.

      Governments are the largest mass murders on the planet. What will you do to convict your government leaders of war crimes?

    21. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fuckin idiot.

    22. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by inKubus · · Score: 1

      It's much easier to believe when you know the truth... there is no war.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    23. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

      Well, anonymous coward, that's an enlightened comment. How about some real debate from you on the topic at hand? Terrorism by the State and Terrorism as Defined by the State?

      Clearly the State, in this case The United States of America and The United Kingdom have committed many atrocities and acts of terror by invading Iraq. You see it on the news every day. It is evident that they have killed and terrorized more people than Al Queda, although Al Queda is quickly catching up (or hopes to surpass).

      None can rival the mass murder committed by governments of the world. The USA is guilty of many crimes. Bush and Cheney are war criminals - all you need to is look at the news and see the dead bodies that are the result of their military campaigns which they promoted and proclaimed to have ordered on television. Their own propaganda - as seen on Fox and CNN - is the evidence that they are guilty of said war crimes and state sponsored terrorism.

      What will you do to convict Bush and Cheney and other members of the USA government of terrorism and mass murder?

      What will you do to stop the terrorism of your country's government?

      What will you do to stop the fake terrorism charges against people simply for possessing technical materials?

      What will you do to stop your government's terrorism at home and abroad?

      What will you do to stop international terrorism by governments and groups such as Al Queda?

    24. Re:terror is a tactic, and we use it too by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to say that your cogent argument is one that I've been trying to formulate myself for the last few years but hadn't thought it through like you obviously have.

      This is an excellent point that I wish all news organizations would post on their front page of newspapers and scrolling across their TV screens for 24 hours. This would do a whole lot of good in getting people to understand why this "War on Terror" is stupid and we'll never "win" it. It's just a waste of money that is ultimately designed to take away our freedoms and push us further into fascism/dictatorship.

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
  56. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously haven't read it.

  57. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes"

    Quit fucking sensationalizing everything.
    Although I disagree with your tone, I agree with your sentiments.

    Zonk, honestly, I'm not on the flame bandwagon of most around here, but I find myself frequently just skipping every article with your name attached to it. Enough with the bait and hook already - a common theme throughout at least 80% of your submissions.

    Slashdot is reading more like the Enquirer these days.
  58. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by M-RES · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, it's part of the UK government's 'War On Islam' - rampantly persued by the British masintream press who salivate over every opportunity to report in the latest 'terror suspect' to be arrested. Of course, this salivation only occurs if the 'suspect' is a British Asian (in Britain 'Asian' denotes people of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi etc decent, not East Asian such as Chinese). A recent conviction of members of the BNP (right wing British National Party - which evolved from the National Front) for offences including having a huge stash of home-made explosives (the largest ever seized in mainland Britain), plus other materials including a rocket launcher of all things, went almost unreported by the MSM. One factor is that they weren't prosecuted under 'anti-terror' laws, they were arrested and charged under the previous existing laws for firearms and explosive materials offences and the whole affair seems to have been quietly ignored by the big news bulletins, because it doesn't fit the racial profile required for sensationalism. In the case mentioned previously of the Asian lad shot in the shoulder by the police during a raid - yes, he was released without charge, then investigated for 'paedophillia' which the media lapped up and reported ad nauseum, but then quietly 'un-arrested' (released without charge) which the press failed to report when the police found he'd done absolutely nothing wrong. The interesting thing is that in the BNP case where the police had genuine reason to suspect, and evidence to back it up, and indeed must have planned the raid in advance, there was a 'press blackout' - no media allowed at the scene. Yet in the London incident, there was a huge press presence as the raid took place involving something like 50 officers based on information which apparently came from an anonymous tip-off. How did the press know to be there as it unfolded unless the police and/or Home Office issued a press-release about the raid? It was planned and staged to hype it up through the roof and a blatant example of the propagandist methodology used by our government. As for the Anarchist Cookbook - I can't see how it could be construed as a piece of 'terrorist' literature. Surely it's a piece of anarchist literature - the clue's in the title!? I think it may be time to think about a print-campaign. Print 50 or 60 million copies and post them through every letterbox in Britain, so that EVERYBODY'S got a copy and then see how the police can possibly enforce this stupid gag of our peaceful freedom's of speech and expression. Otherwise it could be suggested that owning something as benign as a metal tube is a terrorist offence - it COULD be used as a mortar! tsk tsk.

  59. Not entirely true... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    No, in practice it seems to mean not anyone, but people with a darker skin complexion in posession of this type material.

    Or people with non-mainstream religious beliefs. Or people with an unusual interest in firearms. Ooops, idolizing certain subversive figures, and using quotes ("Those who choose a little security...") from great historical figures out of context. Being too interested in the job the police are doing - someone is watching the watchers, don't worry... but it's not going to be you, citizen.

    And the list goes on...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  60. Quick arrest everyone with 'Cross' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might be planning to rape somebody and escape the FBI, just like the action thriller book.

    "why we need to "prevent" terrorism and other crimes."
    Sounds like you're assuming possession of The Anarchists Cookbook equates to terrorism, which is the problem with this Blair law.

  61. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have you ever tried British food? I wouldn't trust any cookbook originating from or used in the UK, that's 100% pure terrorism right there. For those who have no idea what the parent is talking about, I'll explain. I'm an American, but my family is of British origin, so naturally there are hand-me-down recipes that have survived through the years. British food is the blandist sh** you have ever tasted. Think of some food you've had that's really, really bland. Now multiply the blandness factor by a 100 or so. Now you know what he's talking about. (And Brits are the first to admit that their traditional food is, in fact, quite bland.)
  62. The day I became a criminal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I became a criminal the day my guns were made illegal, and my right to bear them was taken away.
    I became a criminal the day I refused to pay increases taxes based on the view out of my window.
    I became a criminal the day I refused to hand over my DNA just in case I commit a crime.

    Today I have become a criminal for wanting to know what the terrorists know.

    Now I am four times a criminal, yet I have performed no action, changed no opinion or spoken a single word out loud.

    I am British, and I am proud?

  63. IOW, mods, grandparent is NOT flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  64. Only because it exists in digital form by Datamonstar · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the book were sitting on his nightstand, bound and in physical form, there would be no problem here, perhaps. At least I hope there wouldn't. The debacle is probably due to that ever-so-bewildering element of digital devices to over-complicate the legal process into such distorted and out of shape lines of thought as criminalizing the digital theft of a piece of media far more than the physical theft of the same media. Maybe it's due to ignorance and and the puffed-up and over emphasized importance placed upon computers in this so-called "digital age" as they directly aid so few of us yet completely mystify the great majority of us that we're seeing these trends such as the translation of the ASCI words of a .txt file into something perceived as far more dangerous and threatening than the printed words of a book. One could also suppose that it is the same phenomenon that transforms the digitized violence of a video game into being more harmful than that which is featured on film. Such is the result of extreme ignorance by a great majority of the populace and the nature of the powers that be to placate this populace with ineffective, unnecessary and and unfair judgments such as this one that make no sense to the rest of us, those few that are left to marvel at the situation and hope that somehow, someday everybody else will get a clue. And maybe one day the use of a computers won't immediately baffle authorities into letting fear and ignorance direct their actions instead of common sense.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    1. Re:Only because it exists in digital form by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Upon re-reading the headline, I now see that it was the submitter who had the book in .txt format, not the boy in the article. But still, ignorance is king these days. I wonder how many people are actually aware that this book exists.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  65. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >their traditional food is, in fact, quite bland
    Any specific meals you can suggest? Personally I'm more than happy to eat: Steak & Kidney Pie, roast potatoes & mashed swede
    Roast Beef 7 Yorkshire Pudding
    Fry up with Black Pudding, bacon, eggs etc
    Shepherds Pie
    Steak & Ale pie
    Cheese 7 onion Pie
    Welsh/Buck Rarebit
    Liver & Bacon
    etc.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  66. Watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch as you relentlessly whore karma by stating something that has been said by hundreds of other thousands of times before and pretend it's new, insightful, or both.

    1. Re:Watch... by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think that's one of the few times I've seen that written in any related Slashdot thread, and I've read quite a few of said threads. It was quite refreshing to read.

  67. religion? by muftak · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It doesn't say in the article, but I'm guessing the guy is a Muslim.

  68. So, did I miss the starting gun? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    Is there some kind of race going on between the major democratic republics of the world to see who can reach 'police state' status first?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:So, did I miss the starting gun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell, it's just between the UK and the US, with Australia trailing a late third. Countries like Denmark and Sweeden are looking on in disbelief.

    2. Re:So, did I miss the starting gun? by CoreDump01 · · Score: 1

      The better questions would be:

      Which western countries government does not yet behave like the long gone STASI or NSDAP? (ie: illegal arrests, arrests due to obvious bullshit laws, spying on private computer systems WITHOUT WARRANT or the knowledge of the victim, telling you what you can read / watch and what not -> the illusion of free press, telling you what you are allowed to think and to say -> the illusion of free speech")

      Which country out there truly honors its citizens right to privacy and does not treat its populace like they were all criminals?

      Which country out there does not surrender to the all-present abuse of the words "terrorist, communist or anarchist" to justify bullshit laws (and even full blown wars...) or to push any other political agenda?

      Which country does not abuse the mainstream media to manipulate the masses to do their bidding in more disgusting ways than even Dr. Goebbels was able to?

      Are there any truly democratic and free countries left?

    3. Re:So, did I miss the starting gun? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Queue soviet Australia jokes. Packing for Sweden in 3....2....

  69. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See what I mean? You just made my point! :-D

  70. book burning by swb311 · · Score: 1

    very European. I thought the Brits despised all things continental?

  71. I'm reminded of Robin Williams... by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the Iraqi interim government was writing their constitution, Robin Williams comment to the affect of "take ours, we're not using it anymore"...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  72. Anarchist's Cookbook by iceZebra · · Score: 1

    Was great fun when I was a kid, many a happy hour was spent making homemade fireworks out of household ingredients...

    When my dad was a kid however, he was able to pop round to local chemical factories and buy all sorts of interesting stuff over the counter. This resulted in the demolition of his garden wall... fantastic.

    I wonder how much terrorism levels have actually declined as a result of banning texts and substances. If someone really wants to commit acts of terrorism, I can't imagine it's hard to figure out ways to do so. All that we've done is make it slightly more difficult to obtain ready-made ingredients. In that light, how exactly does possesion of a (rather innacurate yet very popular amongst teenagers) text make it any more likely that the individual concerned will actually go out and commit acts of terror (disregarding Halloween of course)?

    1. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Terrorism levels have probably risen, considering that there are now more "terrorists" and more terrorist activities.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    2. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook by iceZebra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, classify more people as terrorists and you have higher levels of terrorism... Like another interesting case in the UK; in order to lower NHS Waiting Lists, the lists that qualified as the "relevant" waiting lists were redefined. Surprisingly waiting times were lowered! *cough*

    3. Re:Anarchist's Cookbook by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Ill ask you these two questions.

      How much energy is there in a gallon/litre of 87% octane, 13% ethanol?

      Is there a limit on how much gasoline one can buy?

      --
  73. Amen!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to BOIL a steak, anyway? Or to make a pie out of meat? When I bite into a piece of pie, I don't want to taste boiled beef and vegetables for the love of God!

    BTW, to the original poster: I know you relish the hours you spent downloading and reading the original Anarchist Cookbook in text format, and that the knowledge it contained allowed you to feel empowered and to compensate for your flaccid and useless pre-teen body, but the world has changed just a little bit in the last 20 years. Fucking get over yourself already. I've read it too, and I can say that there's plenty of info in there that could get you accidentally killed if you tried to make the recipes without the proper background in chemistry. Even if you did have a good working knowledge of chemical reactions and safe chemical handling practices, the mere possession of most of the substances/devices listed in that book is enough to land you in jail in just about any country, not just Britain or the USA. And if your only goal is to make your own gun powder, why bother? It's far easier, cheaper, and safer to buy it from an online retailer or at a gun show.

    1. Re:Amen!!! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who the hell thought it would be a good idea .. to make a pie out of meat The British did. We invented the pie in it's modern form ; our innovation was to add fat to the crust, which was previously used as a kind of disposable container to keep the gravy moist in a baked meat stew.
    2. Re:Amen!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to make a pie out of meat? When I bite into a piece of pie, I don't want to taste boiled beef and vegetables for the love of God!
      idiot americans. you fail at history (meat pies came first) and fail at not being a fat fuck (why cant you fools eat anything without a kilo of sugar in it?)
    3. Re:Amen!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot limey! You win at banal trivia and having a head full of rotting, crooked teeth.

  74. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (And Brits are the first to admit that their traditional food is, in fact, quite bland.)

    No, the traditional food isn't bland. But because of the limitations on the food available during World War II, the food was bland then. A whole generation grew up expecting food to be like that, and they set the current stereotype of British food. That generation is passing, though, and British food has been getting better, fast, since the early 1980s. Sure, you can still get crap if you want it (although I think that some American fast-food chains are the worst for that -- I won't name names because at least one of them is litigious, but I bet you can guess). The important thing, though, is that there's a choice again.

    What would traditional American food be, by the way? I don't know anything about Native American cuisine.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  75. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    Then un-check the box in your preferences which make his stories show up on your front page. Stop whining about things you can easily fix for yourself.

  76. Riighhhhtt.... by SharkyTech · · Score: 1

    ... I'm just gonna go move some files around. My copy of the anarchists cookbook is in my 'plausible deniability' Truecrypt partition. Maybe it should be in the hidden one...

    --
    Give us this day our garlic bread and lead us not into vegetarianism but deliver us some pizza.
  77. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    and iirc after the war britan was under crushing debt (mainly to the US) from having been the main fighter on the western front for a large portion of the war.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  78. YES, you can read the cookbook. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It might be "banned", but you can still read it, they have to catch you first. I encourage everyone to download it in protest of this. What the hell are they going to do arrest the entire IT population. If your even a little concerned about the state of affairs and the way things are going. Its time to get mad... Really mad. How long before the govenments start releasing gistapo on to our streets? The most frightening thing is, that im concerned, scared even, for writing this post.... Am I breaking the law? Its a grey area now!

    Sedition, Terrisom, Treason

    Fuck the govenment. I will not give up out freedoms for perceved security. NO way im subjecting my unbourne children to a world where free thinking, free flow of information is controlled. Where suggesting a revolution is punishable.

    Get Mad, and get Mad NOW!

  79. "Midsts of time"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Back in the midsts of time
    That'd be "mists of time", or perhaps the "depths of time".

    HTH. HAND.

    Brought to you by the Slashdot Ad Hoc Volunteer Editorial Team. Our motto: "Someone's Gotta Do It".

  80. Knolwedge is power by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So cant let your citizens have knowledge. Regardless of their intent. So book burning has effectivly started again. The world is screwed.

    Just for the record that particular book is pretty lame anyway.. It was mostly propaganda fluff to get sales. There are a lot "worse" out there, like the 'chemical abstracts'.. Guess they need to ban science too? Oh, and i guess they stopped teaching people in their army too? You know they get out of the forces eventually, and they dont just forget what they learned.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  81. Is it just me... by Angeret · · Score: 1

    ... or am I the only one in the UK who has a copy printed from the downloadable version - and has had it borrowed by the local police, photocopied ('cause they're too lazy to get their own downloaded) and then returned intact? (a reader here for a couple of years and my first post on /.)

    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our anarchic palindromic registration number overlords.

  82. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by digitig · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, we finished paying it off almost a year ago http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1264220.ece. But it's a long time since that debt has been so bad that we couldn't afford good food.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  83. Re: Indefinitely. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    Fortunately the boy was charged in the UK. So he can be held for *only* 28 days.

    Surely that's how long you can be held without charge? (Which the Labour Government wanted to raise to 90 days.)

    Obviously once people have been charged, they can be held for much longer whilst they await trial.

  84. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    Your parents experience was most probably heavily influenced by the rationing restrictions imposed during and after WWII. I am English and I can tell you that there's no way English cuisine is even remotely bland. Most English people would not say their food is bland, you are obviously badly out of touch.

    Let's see if you can pick the shit food out of this little lot:

    Chicken Tikka Masala
    Balti
    Sponge cake
    Fruit Crumbles
    Roast Lamb/beef/pork
    Yorkshire pudding
    Shepherds pie
    Hamburgers
    Pork Pie
    Spicy pickled onions
    Crappy, shit, bollocks hot dog "sausages"
    Beer

    Did you guess the shit ones ? They were Hamburgers and Hot Dog "Sausages", cusine which is in fact Americas outstanding contribution to the world.

  85. he's being tried for possession of materials ... by pbhj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Article:
    >>> "The first charge relates to the possession of material for terrorist purposes in October last year.

    The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism. "

    So basically the Police are charging him with "possession of materials" that are modified for, or clearly indicate, terrorist activity (they'd just observe him otherwise to wait for some real evidence and look for co-conspirators, etc.). The fact he had the anarchist cookbook just means that they can also accuse him of "possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism".

    Now whether that second charge requires the information to be being used to prepare for an apparent act of terrorism or not I don't know. But the BBC article seems quite clear that the possession of information is secondary.

  86. In the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never forget that in the UK, you are not a citizen. You are a "subject" of the crown.

    And in the USA, there's a reason why all law enforcement personnel always refer to any person who is not also a member of law enforcement as a "subject".

    1. Re:In the UK... by blackchiney · · Score: 1

      I don't interact with a lot of cops, but I do watch them on TV. I've never heard anyone called a subject. Suspect, con, convict yes I hear those. But not subject.

    2. Re:In the UK... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      My British passport tells me I am a citizen of the UK.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    3. Re:In the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't interact with a lot of cops, but I do watch them on TV

      TV's depiction of how cops work in their own environment is mostly inaccurate.

      I've never heard anyone called a subject. Suspect, con, convict yes I hear those. But not subject.

      I worked for a city police dept for more than 5 years, and yes the common vernacular they use to refer to individual members of the public is "subject". Ever listen to a police scanner radio?
      "Subject" is a polite way of not quite fully calling everyone a suspect, because from a cop's point of view, he is supposed to suspect everyone of something.

    4. Re:In the UK... by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      As long as the Crown says you are!

      Yes, and I know that there is "custom", I am just pointing out that legally, your rights are granted to you by the royal family. The fact that they haven't yet chosen to revoke them doesn't mean they can't.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    5. Re:In the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ".... You are a "subject" of the crown...."

      Actually, that's fine. It's a personal relationship harking back to feudal times. But that does NOT mean that you are SUBJECT to anything the GOVERNMENT may do, at all.

      The great thing about a Monarch is that your relationship is directly with the Monarch. There is no sense in which a UK subject owes any duty of alliegance to a political figure, as all US citizens do. They are subject to GWB in a way that no Briton could ever be.

      You are forced by your constitution to have a government, which has become a tyranny in a few short years.

    6. Re:In the UK... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      legally, your rights are granted to you by the royal family
      Untrue. If you had read the article you give a link to you will find:

      In particular, the British monarch does not have the power to deprive an individual of his or her life, liberty or property as these rights are said to derive from the Fundamental Laws of England.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:In the UK... by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Constitution for my state guarantees the right of armed revolution.

      The Federal Constitution is supposed to be a limit on the powers of the government. It doesn't grant any rights (we already had them), it's supposed to be a framework for limited government that Lincoln started to kill and FDR finished.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  87. Factually Incorrect : We let a Hitler off the hook by tjstork · · Score: 1

    If you study history, you'd know that in fact they were ready to give up. Some of the generals didn't want to give up, but the emperor did and was ready to surrender. The nuclear bombs were entirely unnecessary and just caused a large and needless loss of civilian life.

    That's actually not true at all. The fact of the matter is, and this was actually corroborated by a British study taken by a bunch of liberals seeks to prove American war guilt in the 1990s, and they themselves (being scientists first, and politicians second), came to the shocking conclusion that:

    a) Emperor Hirohito was actually one of the prime movers behind the war, and the whole "crazy general" thing is something McArthur cooked up in the occupation.

    b) Japan was sending out peace feelers through Russia, but there peace offers would have left Japan with China, Singapore, and more.

    c) The Japanese, unlike the Germans, had actually correct guessed the locations of where a theoretical American landing (Operation Olympic) would have been, and had prepared a large number of kamikaze aircraft (also unlike the Germans), to contest those landings.

    d) The atomic bomb removed, in the Japanese eyes, the thought of any island defense. If the Americans could simply destroy Japan from the air with the atomic bomb, there could be no resistance.

    The bottom line is, the Emperor started the war, fought it, and ultimately only surrendered when it was clear that the atomic bomb made it utterly impossible for Japan to continue fighting. Without the bomb, the Emperor would have never surrendered. Thus, bomb the city, let the Japanese emperor off the hook but hang all of his generals, and made him a puppet of Douglas MacArthur, in order to get legitimacy for all the changes MacArthur rammed through the Japanese system.

    The a-bomb was good. It ended the war early, and put Japan well on her way to becoming a more modern nation.

    Unfortunately, current American foreign policy of demonizing foreign leaders actually precludes us from winning the peace whereever we fight. Imagine how little resistance there would be if we had invaded Iraq, actually KEPT SADDAM IN POWER, and made him an American puppett to quell a Sunni uprising before it started.

    --
    This is my sig.
  88. Right by Ep0xi · · Score: 0

    And their hackers publish forbidden books on the Internet and then they goes after you because of your terrorist training.

    --
    ?
  89. Leave it to a /tard to work in an iPhone comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are truly brilliant, sir.

  90. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

    Spotted Dick has to be my all-time favorite popular British dish I have no desire to eat. Last time I was there I got bangers and eggs for breakfast, about as bland as it gets. So, for lunch I tried a nice sounding pita-bread thing which turned out to be sliced up bangers mixed with eggs in a pita. No matter how hard I tried to avoid ordering bangers and eggs, I kept on getting it. Now my trip to Italy... totally different! Yummy food everywhere, so long as I avoided pizza bars and tourist traps!

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  91. Trying to figure out your reading algorithm by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Do you read every other page, or only page numbers ending in "e"?

    You left out the part where those generals were ready to kill the emperor if he tried to surrender.

    I think it was on page 294, or 296. Hope that helps.

    By the way, there were probably several times _more_ Japanese lives saved by the two N-bombs than were lost by them. Do the math -- say x Japanese are dying per day from conventional bombing. Then if, for example, 10x Japanese died from the two nuclear bombs but they shortened the war by a month then we have a winner. Some people just don't like seeing "winner" and "two nuclear bombs" in the same sentence. To those people I suggest go hug a tree.

    P.S. All you really need to know about dropping the two bombs is that Harry S Truman decided it was ok. One of the most intelligent men ever to lead a country and certainly the most-well-respected-by-his-troops president to have lead in battle (WW1). HST actually read and made up his own mind about what was put on his desk, unlike other presidents. [I'm a Canuck for those loading their flame throwers.] Check out "Plain Speaking" for more on the man.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Trying to figure out your reading algorithm by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately not intelligent to tell the french to get their grubby little hands off of Vietnam however. If he had, the Vietnam war probably would never have come to pass because they would have had no reason to go communist.

    2. Re:Trying to figure out your reading algorithm by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      Well, their grubby French hands were already ruling Vietnam. HST was hoping for some enlightenment on their part. Excerpt from http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm:

      In May 1945, the Truman administration gave France its approval to resume colonial authority in Indochina, Truman hoping that France would liberalize its rule there....The United States helped the French in Vietnam, President Truman doing so for the sake of the fight against communism in Europe and in Indochina...
      --
      I come here for the love
  92. Where does it end ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose next they'll be blocking YouTube in UK, because those "Diet Coke and Mentos Rockets" are potentially terrorist missiles ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkkOUPYNs7I

  93. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by antiseptic_poetry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_June_2006_London_terror_raid

    I believe in the Inquest it came out that the police were wearing chemical suits during the raid, including thick padded gloves. The officer who fired the shot doesn't remember pulling the trigger - he said he couldn't feel anything due to his heavy anti-terrorism outfit.

  94. Ignorance = terrorism by x_terminat_or_3 · · Score: 1

    How was the kid- or for that matter, anyone- to know that the book is considered illegal?

    --
    Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. T. S. Eliot
  95. Giving Up Freedom by Scotland+Tom · · Score: 1

    So when does the book burning begin? It's beginning to look like the UK expects it's people to give up their freedom if they want to keep it.

  96. Free men... by rwyoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...don't need their government's permission to own a book.

    1. Re:Free men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, maybe someone will figure out this is against the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the UK's constitution. Oh wait, what constitution? The British government is intrinsically unstable due to the fact that it is missing this basic structure. Other countries will make similar missteps and laws like this, but they will eventually be corrected or overthrown to return to the text of the constitutions which are difficult to change. But a country like Britain which can pass any law it wants is not subject to these constraints.

      Not to invoke Godwin's law, but since we are talking about constitutions and the structure of government, Germany's constitution could be changed by a simple majority in the 30s, and thus it was. To remain stable and protect against tyranny, a government must have constraints on its structure and limits on its power which take far more than a simple majority or singular act to change. The UK does not have this.

  97. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did you guess the shit ones ? They were Hamburgers and Hot Dog "Sausages", cusine which is in fact Americas outstanding contribution to the world. Sure, pick the crappiest contributions. ;-) Although I must say that I enjoy an excellent gourmet cheeseburger now and again, some of America's better contributions to the world:

    - chili
    - pizza - New York or Chicago Style (Pizza was never good in Italy until it came to America!)
    - Philly Cheesesteak
    - the Coney Island hot dog (hot dog "sausages" with chili, mustard and onion -- mmmmmm!)
    - 'french' fries (which are really an American invention)
    - Coney Fries -- french fries covered in chili and cheese sauce
    - the Ice Cream cone (invented at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis, Mo.)
  98. You cannot be serious! by slashmojo · · Score: 3, Informative

    British food is the blandist sh** you have ever tasted.

    Clearly you have no clue.. traditional British food such as chicken tikka masala or a fine vindaloo is not bland in any way shape or form!

    1. Re:You cannot be serious! by kkiller · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, but a Tikka Masala is like asking for a something spicy, and then chickening out by chucking in a dollop of cream. It's curry for cowards.

  99. Yes, because the best way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best way to protect children is to arrest them. Because reform school and prison is really the best way to protect children who read the wrong books.

    Perhaps we need firemen assigned to this task.

  100. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    sure it is, I was just pointing out that brits lived in wartime like conditions for a lot longer than the actual war.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  101. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Did you guess the shit ones ? They were Hamburgers and Hot Dog "Sausages", cusine which is in fact Americas outstanding contribution to the world.

    A well-prepared hamburger or hot dog can be quite good. They just don't know how to prepare them where you are.

    I mean, pick any pub in the US that has a full-service kitchen, and order a hamburger. You'll usually get a decent-sized, properly cooked (a little pink inside), seasoned hamburger. Do the same in the US and you'll get a charred, golfball-sized lump of meat hidden inside a roll. Casual dining places in England just don't put any effort into what they make. They don't care.

    Besides which, a) both hamburger and hot dogs are of German descent, and b) there's plenty of other types of American food that have been exported to other countries. Go into a Mexican restaurant and chances are a substantial portion of the dishes actually arose north of the border.

  102. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Do the same in the US and you'll get a charred, golfball-sized lump of meat hidden inside a roll.

    Obviously, that should have read "do the same in England."

  103. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by jrumney · · Score: 1

    What would traditional American food be, by the way?

    Genetically modified bland shit, with added high fructose corn syrup and olestra.

  104. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there's a lot of good American food but it's a fact that most of the world thinks the epitomy of American cuisine is the Big Mac which is why I picked those examples since they illustrate that peoples perception of a national cusine are not necessarily accurate.

    Only the term ice cream and adding a cone was invented at the Worlds Fair, it's been around an awful lot longer than that and in fact soft ice cream was invented by the English. Also french fries ( chips ) are definitely not an American invention although you guys have put a lot of effort into developing some sort of vile salty, crunchy abomination !

  105. Ha! by peebeel · · Score: 1

    Every high school across the country has its little group of kids in the upper sets who all have copies of the cookbook, as well as the much better and more releveant SWATeam (south west anarchy) C00kB00k and various anarchy zines/newsletters and we've, I mean they've for fear of being arrested, all made a few things out of it. Its a bit of fun and this is just another example of Labour being ever more keen to keep us all in fear and quite easy to mould into their ridiculous ID card carrying public they so strongly desire. I only hope there's no early election so that come next year I'll be able to vote along with many thousands of disgruntled seventeen going on eighteen year olds who are sick of living under this regieme.

  106. We were taken to the cleaners..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "..So much so, I often wonder if Al Queda WANTED us to invade Afghanistan...."

    Not exactly. No one in the world cared much about Afghanistan. But Iraq, that was a different matter.

    Iraq and Iran had been fighting each otherfor the last ten years. America supported Iraq in an attempt to knock the stuffing out of Iran. So Iran wanted Iraq overthrown.

    Do you remember all those stories about Iraq looking for Uranium, and planning 'weapons of mass destruction'? Where do you think they came from? Yup, planted by SAVAK and MOIS. We knew so little about the area, we walked into a classic patsy feed.

    Iran knew that, once the Ba'ath party had been ousted, Shiites were the most numerous group in Iraq and, properly led, would take the country over. That's what's happening. And soon Iraq will merge with Iran, and Iran will be the biggest power in the region.

    The Kurds in the north are due to be slaughtered by the Turks. That's beginning right now.

    Our problem is that we can't elect anyone intelligent. You heard it here first!

    1. Re:We were taken to the cleaners..... by some+damn+guy · · Score: 1

      How is that insightful???? You make a great point about IRAN wanting us to invade Iraq, but they of course had nothing to do with 9/11. My statement was about AL QUEDA, who remembered humiliating the Soviets in Afghanistan and could quite conceivably think they could do the same to us, if only they could provoke us into invading. THEY cared a lot about Afghanistan, because that's where they were!

      Iran privately cheered when we ousted the Taliban, and Al Queda WILL cheer when we bomb Iran. These people are mortal enemies, each very much on the fast track to hell with regards to each group's respective religious beliefs. This is not an exaggeration or a joke, Al Queda has actually said, 'you guys should bomb Iran' (they probably have their eyes on Pakistan's bomb anyways). Ret. General Odom mentioned this a while back.

      You ARE right about stupid leadership. We attacked a swarn enemy of Al Queda when we went after Hussein (he didn't want the competition), and if we attack Iran, we will be attacking the moral enemy of BOTH. We will be conducting military operations in three countries who ALL hate each other, AT ONCE! No one was ever that stupid in the middle east.

      Why are we in such deep shit? Because no one realized it was even POSSIBLE to be this stupid. The only parallel I can think of to the Bush administration is Enron. I really mean it. It screwed up so bad, because it thought it was not only incredibly smart, but also above the rules others had to live by.

      If George W. Bush had been president in 1941, he would have bombed Russia. Notice how when we talks about the Iraqis going to the polls and making their voices heard he neglects to mention how they overwhelmingly voted for whoever their religious leaders wanted them to. Americans are dying to create another theocratic regime in the middle east. Just you wait, no matter how long we stay, just you wait.

  107. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Because the UK is within the EU, at least there is some control over how much crap is in it.

    In the US most food contains High Fructose Corn Syrup, or is genetically modified, or made out of pure E numbers.

    As for flavour - compare british, american and french mustard and see which is the strongest.

    As for "pink" hamburgers, I had one of those in the USA and it made me throw up. The reason for the law regarding cooking meat thoroughly (longer than 90 seconds(?)) is to kill bacteria, which is mostly on the outside of steaks, but minced all the way through burgers.

  108. UK = police state by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Britain is a police state. No doubt about that. The next election has been deferred until Gordon Brown can work out how to make it a criminal offence not to vote for him.

    However, there is a healthy population of outlaws. Dope smoking, movie downloading, blowing things up and dancing all night are alive and well ..... just under most people's radar. It's mostly stupid people who get caught, and frankly they're no great loss.

    Britain is basically two countries in one. The mainstream media, with its split personality (turning ordinary people into mindless, celebrity-obsessed chavs and simultaneously castigating them for being that way) created the whole mess (and look at this from 2001 for an example of mainstream-media hypocrisy ..... though this one was about paedophilia, not terrorism ..... it's saying something when the two are virtually interchangeable). The deep underground movement ..... well, if you haven't heard of it, you're not meant to hear of it.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:UK = police state by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      "Britain is a police state. No doubt about that."
      That's an insult to people who actually do live in police states.

    2. Re:UK = police state by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody is so enslaved as those who falsely believe themselves to be free.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  109. Those references son... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Boy, you're in a heap ' O trouble.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  110. Obligatory link by metamatic · · Score: 1
    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Obligatory link by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think he also managed to characterize the fear of the unknown (whether desired or not). After all the censorship in F451 was created because the people WANTED it. I also think that's a very crucial piece there, people WANT some things to be banned because they are afraid of it. Only in that case it was something they were too dumb to use anymore rather than something they were too old-fashined to understand. Perhaps Bradbury criticised himself a bit with that, where the people in his book fear the old unknown he fears the new unknown... Though bashing MTV is always a worthy cause.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  111. An Unprovoked Invasion Into A Foreign Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  112. How to protest this by Mock · · Score: 1

    This is essentially the establishment of a thought crime.

    The best way to protest this is to print out a bunch of copies, and then set up a booth outside the courthouse giving them away for free.

  113. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

    Man shot in anti-terrorism raid

    Altogether, an estimated 250 police officers took part in the raid, in which Abdul Kahar Kalam was shot in the shoulder. The family had 25,000 pounds in cash in their flat.

    Terror raid man is held over "child porn on computer".

    In its report on the incident, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said that the policeman who shot Mr Kahar had not acted recklessly or maliciously and should not be prosecuted or disciplined. The report said that forensic analysis had shown that he had accidentally shot Mr Kahar at a range of less than two inches during a confrontation on a dark, narrow half-landing.
    Related Links

    The officer, who is a member of an elite firearms unit, was the first of 15 officers into the home. He was wearing a protective suit and gloves, a helmet, ear protectors and a respirator. At the time of the shooting the safety catch on his gun was off. When the gun fired it was in an almost upright position, fastened by a sling and not a normal firing position.

    The officer, code-named B6, said that as he went up the stairs in the house he shouted "armed police", but the respirator could have muffled his voice. He reached the half-landing and, the report said, "was aware of two figures approaching at speed. B6 states that he and the two figures came into contact and this caused him to lose his balance and come into contact with the wall."

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  114. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    It even shows you how to build a dirty bomb.

    Oh my God! No way!

    How to build a dirty bomb:
    1. Get some explosives. Something like some C4 would be good, but anything will do, even packed black powder.
    2. Get some radioactive material. Try to use something that's both highly radioactive and has a decent half-life. You can try lab supply companies, medical supply companies, scrapped medical equipment (You'd be amazed at what gets left on a scrap heap) or even get a couple of boxes and smoke-detectors and dismantle them. Consider buying a lead apron if you don't want to irradiate yourself too badly.
    3. Pack the radioactive material around the explosive charge.
    Well gee, that was hard.
  115. Good British Food vs Bad British food by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've had both. Bad British food is bad bad bad, as bad as the worst of American bus station food. Think of bangers and mash when the mash is lumpy reconstituted powder and the bangers are boiled to death, accompanied by vegetables boiled into limpness, and fish&chips where the fish didn't totally thaw out while the batter was getting burned. That's not something that post-war rationing influenced, it's just bad cooking on dishes that need to be cooked well.


    I was a carnivore the last time I was in Britain, and the meat dishes ranged from the above to really good. Now that I'm vegetarian, there's less of traditional English cooking that's interesting, but some of it's still good, especially the cheeses, and of course the best place in the world to get Indian food is London (though I tend to prefer the southern Indian cuisines which were less common there.)


    Another poster put out a list of foods and asked which the bad ones were, with the desired conclusion of the two American dishes - hamburgers and hot dogs. Sorry, wrong answer, even though you're picking out German-American dishes as opposed to English-American. Hot dogs are pretty dreadful imitations of their German predecessors, but cooking them over fire helps, and I've had Chicken Tikka Masala that's almost as bad and bangers that are worse. And hamburgers can be cooked badly, but good hamburgers are hard to beat - with good meat cooked over fire (or even fried at the right temperature) on a good toasted bun with onions and optionally some decent ketchup.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  116. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by digitig · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's true enough. Food rationing in the UK didn't end until July 1954.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  117. Brits, eat Corgi shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck Brown's cock and enjoy your Panopticon Paradise, pant-shitters.

    Do you feel safe from the Big Bad Bearded Man now?

    Bunch of pant-shitters. The smell must be awful where you live, wallowing in your own feces, trembling with fear.

  118. Just because one place doesn't have it by paranode · · Score: 1

    Doesn't mean 100 others won't have it. Since there is no legit 'banning' of a book it will be available at most outlets. Most of your 'examples' to the contrary are mere speculative tin-foil theories anyway which have little to do with it.

  119. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by xmedar · · Score: 1

    You left out Chicken Tikka Masala...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
  120. I own the Anarchist Cookbook by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

    I'm also currently reading "In Defense of Anarchism" by Robert Paul Wolff for a philosophy class. Come and get me facisist!

    --
    You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
  121. Im really not sure what to make of it. by pjr.cc · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On one hand it sounds like the UK govt are the german nazi's with the whole book-burning thing. Which is extremely disturbing.

    But, i find it very hard to believe that the UK govt would hole up a teenager for no reason other than this. It sounds a little implausible.

    But, of course, the world has gone slightly psycho when it comes to anything that could vaguely be interpreted at terrorism. I half expect to read about how some guy's dog did a cr*p on the lawn at a park when he just happened to have a clear line of site to George W Bush and so he got arrested for using his dog to drop a bomb that could have been used to kill the president of the USA.

    its interesting that alot of what our societies were built on was to protect against such ridiculous and draconian control over the populace!

  122. Guy Fawkes by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like the UK needs a modern day Guy Fawkes. Only the modern one needs to succeed in blowing up Parliament.

    Speaking of that, if anybody in the RTP (NC) area is interested in having some sort of Guy Fawkes Night event this year, gimme a shout. I'm thinking we should co-opt the British holiday and celebrate the Guy Fawkes of the world, maybe burn an effigy of a cop or George Bush, instead of an effigy of Fawkes. Make it a celebration of the spirit of those who would oppose The State. After all, historically us lot here in the U.S. have taken ideas like Freedom and Liberty a little more seriously than our British kin.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    1. Re:Guy Fawkes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After all, historically us lot here in the U.S. have taken ideas like Freedom and Liberty a little more seriously than our British kin."

      Of course you have! After all, with such a vast national history how could you possibly have not? Pick up a history book and read it you ignorant twat, i think you might be suprised about how much fighting the British have done in the name of freedom in their thousands of years of history. This is before we even get into how many tin-pot dictatorships your government has propped up in direct contravention of the ideals of "freedom and liberty". Of course being an ignorant, arrogant American you won't bother and will continue blithely through your life without ever questioning your moral superiority but there we go, what's new? Whoever modded you up needs their head examined too.

    2. Re:Guy Fawkes by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the UK needs a modern day Guy Fawkes. Only the modern one needs to succeed in blowing up Parliament.

      Fantasies of "V for Vendetta" aside, you do realize that the bombing of Parliament would be the quickest and surest way to encourage the formation of a dictatorship in the UK? If you fear that people in charge want to take away the people's freedoms, the last thing you want to do is to give them some reason to fear that they are under attack, as Goebbels would suggest. Look at what 9-11 did to the US and the Reichstag fire did to Germany.

      (On the other hand, maybe they'd get lucky and get that Spain got after the Madrid bombings. I wouldn't put too much stock into that, though.)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Guy Fawkes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the UK we celebrate the "he tried to blow them up" idea. With a slight wishful smile on our faces. :-)

      But the celebration was started by the "Not blown up king" as a celebration of the fact they failed!

      On a side note - Don't dis the UK, we take Freedom very seriously. Your last sentence was just daft.

  123. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by babyrat · · Score: 1

    - chili
    - pizza - New York or Chicago Style (Pizza was never good in Italy until it came to America!)
    - Philly Cheesesteak
    - the Coney Island hot dog (hot dog "sausages" with chili, mustard and onion -- mmmmmm!)
    - 'french' fries (which are really an American invention)
    - Coney Fries -- french fries covered in chili and cheese sauce
    - the Ice Cream cone (invented at the 1904 World's Fair in St. Louis, Mo.


    and people wonder why americans have issues with obesity...

  124. So Broad by rossz · · Score: 1

    The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.


    That pretty much covers every bit of knowledge known to man. So they can arrest anyone they wish using this law. That was, no doubt, the entire point.
    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  125. Anyone? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    As the current administration has so capably demonstrated, it has no qualms about going after anyone.

    They obviously have not gone after you. You are living counterevidence to your own point.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Anyone? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Brave Guy: "As the current administration has so capably demonstrated, it has no qualms about going after anyone."

      SuperKendall: "They obviously have not gone after you. You are living counterevidence to your own point."

      Maybe Anonymous Brave Guy just runs really fast.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Anyone? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      They obviously have not gone after you. You are living counterevidence to your own point.

      An interesting assumption on your part.

      Actually, they demonstrably have gone after people for doing several things that I myself have done and that I consider perfectly reasonable behaviour. There, but for the grace of $DEITY, go I.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  126. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mashed swede

    You insensitive clot - I'm a Swede!

  127. Why so trusting? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    He now has his day in court and the Crown Prosecution Service can make their case for his guilt and he can make his case for his innocence, and he'll be given ample opportunity to tell the court his story.

    That's a very trusting view. I hope you're right, but I strongly suspect you're not.

    If Pakistan can have corrupt government, and the U.S. can have corrupt government, then why on earth would the U.K. be exempt? The common factor among nations is that humans are in charge of running things, and until there is a definitive test for psychopathy and penalties for greed, then no government deserves any level of trust, especially when it comes to cases like this. --The kid in question is most likely going to be nailed to the wall, innocent or not. The government cannot afford for him to be innocent. I'm surprised he and his family members were not accidentally gunned down by trigger happy police who later absolved themselves of wrongdoing through liberal use of PR spin and a media more than happy to play along. Wouldn't have been the first time.


    -FL

  128. Re: I generally don't lock my car door by datadigger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please leave a box of tissues in the back seat!

    --
    Aphorisms don't fix code. (Bart Smaalders)
  129. I have... by JoeInnes · · Score: 1

    I have myself read several Tom Clancy novels describing in detail several different methods of killing people. Does that make me guilty of conspiring to commit terrorism? I hope not. Yet, I feel that the methods described in the Tom Clancy novels are more reliable for effective terrorism than the Anarchist's Cookbook.

    Surely this is one more step towards thought-crime? Fair enough, if a terrorist incident occurs, or the authorities believe it will occur, then question him, search his house and detain him for up to 48 hours, fine. BUT - if he's done nothing except read this book, then for God's sake, let him go. This is the sort of thing the Russian Tsars used to execute people for.

  130. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Funny

    On the bright side, it appears you are winning your War On Paragraphs.

  131. THIS BOOK IS AVAILABLE ON AMAZON'S UK SITE!!! by M-RES · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can you believe it? This book is available to uy in the UK through Amazons UK site (amazon.co.uk)! Does this mean Amazon are sponsoring terrorism? heh ;)

  132. We still have the YMBOA by 32771 · · Score: 1

    Don't try this at home kids:

    http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/ymboa/ymboa.html

    I badly would like to have this, too sad that I'll have to wait until March. Wait! Which year would that be?

    Why can't I have this? I would even pay! This can't possibly be considered dangerous, it was printed in 1854 and mankind didn't kill itself off yet.

    Oh well - can't have everything I guess ...

    --
    Je me souviens.
  133. the collection or possession of information... by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Informative

    The second [charge] relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism. Oh my God ... Nuke the universities!!!
    • Physics books...
    • Chemistry books....
    • English books (for preparing effective demands letters).
    • Photography and arts (for preparing terrorist training materials
    • Computing Science (for calculating the best mixtures)
    • Human Kinetics (to learn how to carry the bomb).
    (you might as well burn the libraries, too).
    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  134. Terrorism . . . by l0rd.47hl0n · · Score: 0

    Well hell, son . . . a pocket knife could be used to terrorize. They can have my knife when they pry it out of my cold dead hands.

  135. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

    What would traditional American food be, by the way?
    I don't think there's anything nationwide (maybe there isn't in England, either -- I don't know), but southwest/Text-Mex food like chili and fajitas is American, albeit heavily influenced by Mexican food. In the northeast, there are a lot of baked goods invented by German immigrants ("Pennsylvania Dutch"), along with spinach salad. American pizza doesn't bear much resemblance to Italian pizza. Ranch dressing is definitely American.

    I'm sure there's more, but on the whole, we're an awful lot like the British and use everyone else's food ideas.

  136. In the UK, Possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
    is NOT terrorism. The /. headline is wrong and deliberately inflammatory.

    If you RTFA, you'll see that the terrorism charge stems from having "material for terrorist purposes", unrelated to posessing the book. He was collecting the materials necessary to make bombs or other terrorist devices with the intent to use them that way. That's why the charge says "purposes".

    You can buy ammonium nitrate. You can buy diesel fuel. That's not a crime, by itself. Put the ammonium nitrate onto your garden, and the fuel into your diesel car. End of story.

    If you don't have a diesel vehicle of any kind, though, you might have to explain why you bought the combination of the two. If they find out you have a book that tells you how to make BOMBS out of the combination, well, it would appear your intent is to make a bomb.

    Even then, there are acceptable reasons to do that. Farmers, sometimes, need to remove tree stumps from areas they are going to plant. Boom. Stump gone. Not terrorism.

    If you cannot persuade them that your intent is not criminal, you get charged. You get charged with having the material with an intent, and they'll throw in the book as evidence of the intent. I.e., why did you buy an-fo? Because the book says that's how to make a bomb.

    Just having the book isn't illegal and doesn't show an intent, other than to own the book. Owning the book and buying the things it tells you to buy to make a bomb indicates an intent to make a bomb. That's when it's illegal.

  137. there go your chemistry books by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    So when are they going to ban all chemistry books, seeing how any simple chemistry book can lead to an act of terrorism? Come to think of it, biochemistry too, and physics, and just about anything else they teach in the sciences. Books concerning any kind of weapon, like how to clean your gun? Books about how to stage civil disobedience, peaceful or not?

    Slippery slope may be a fallacious form of reasoning but this sure seems like a law just begging to be used for massive censorship, especially when the government gets to define "terrorism" and the public is, well, not exactly complaining about anything.

  138. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there's a lot of good American food but it's a fact that most of the world thinks the epitomy of American cuisine is the Big Mac which is why I picked those examples since they illustrate that peoples perception of a national cusine are not necessarily accurate. Point taken.

    Only the term ice cream and adding a cone was invented at the Worlds Fair, it's been around an awful lot longer than that and in fact soft ice cream was invented by the English. Also french fries ( chips ) are definitely not an American invention although you guys have put a lot of effort into developing some sort of vile salty, crunchy abomination ! But out of your list, I could list the following as being non-British in origin

    Chicken Tikka Masala -- Indian -- claimed to be invented in England, but true origins unknown
    Balti -- Indian/Pakistani -- claimed to be invented in England, but, again, true origins are unknown

    Sponge cake -- only Victorian sponge cake originated in England. Sponge cake probably originated in France or Switzerland.

    Roast Lamb/beef/pork -- unknown origin, really. People have been roasting meat from cattle, lambs and pigs for millenia.

    Shepherds pie -- while a traditional English dish, I'm told its origins are mostly Scottish. still U.K. anyway. ;)

    Beer -- Definitely invented in Egypt or Mesopotamia, not England.

  139. Your Citizenship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    has been revoked.

    PatRIOTically,
    President-VICE Richard B. Cheney

  140. if i recall correctly by drfrog · · Score: 1

    genesis p orridge was kicked out of england for possessing books on witchcraft over 5 years ago

    the uk has some very silly laws on possession of information

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  141. Re:What is american food? by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

    What would traditional American food be, by the way? I don't know anything about Native American cuisine. Well let me take a stab at it. Keep in mind that America is a melting pot, so we take all the food we get and Americanize it. Sweeten it with diabetes-inducing high fructose corn syrup, and don't use the cheap/disgusting parts of the animal like tongue, stomach, high fat areas.
    So here's my list:
    Apple Pie, meatloaf, the casserole family (broccoli, hamburger, etc), bacon & eggs either scrambled on toast or cooked sunnyside up, Pancakes, waffles, steak or pot roast with mashed potatoes and gravy, peanut butter sandwiches, tuna salad.
    There is another list for each of the regions, the midwest/Texas, the South/Lousiana, West Coast/California, East coast/Boston.

    Oh and one final tip: Don't eat anyone elses' meatlof.
    --
    They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  142. What about SouthPark? by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1
    What about SouthPark? Cartman constantly uses fear to try to get people to do what he wants. E.g.: Cartoon Wars Part II

    Cartman: I'll use this situation to get Family Guy cancelled. I use fear to manipulate people to do my bidding.
    Bart Simpson: Uh, isn't that like terrorism?
    Cartman: Dude, it's not like terrorism! It is terrorism!

  143. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

    The UK does not have freedom of the press, and never did. Truth is not even an ironclad defense against claims of libel there.

    --
    How ya like dat?
  144. In soviet russia... waitaminute... by eagl · · Score: 1

    In soviet russia... Wait. Now we're going to have to change that.

    In the UK, knowledge owns you!

    Sucks to be the kid who went to bed one night in a free country and woke up the next day under an oppressive thought-crime regime just as bad as the worst soviet-era oppression stereotypes...

    If they think that text file was bad, wait until they catch some poor kid with the preamble to the US declaration of independence. THAT guy is going to be in for it.

  145. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by krashnburn200 · · Score: 1
  146. Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, the Anarchist's Cookbook possesses YOU.

  147. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by deacon · · Score: 1

    Indeed. As this video shows, Islam is a religion that just wants to get along.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/ad8SX9xtFJg

    The signs saying "WE ARE ALL HIZBULLAH" and the pictures of that well known man (a saint, really,) of peace, tolerance, and understanding, the revered Ruhollah Khomeini, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini simply exude tranquility and harmony. Anyone who says otherwise is unjustly demonizing Islam.

    This post may contain sarcasm. Do not eat.

  148. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Winckle · · Score: 1

    Masala wine was never used by the Indian people, and Balti was invented in Birmingham.

  149. Anarchist Cookbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like for there to be a conspiracy-esque charge, there would have to be an element of capability.

    The anarchist cookbook is about the single most useless file in existance. 13 year olds are harmless for a reason. Their time is better invested tracking oxygen and acetylene containers. I learned more about explosives in a week on a forum or in a welding class than I have ever learned from text files.

    It's 100% garbage.

    Fuck the UK. It wouldn't surprise me if UK cops are as clueless as the citizens and think the AC is actually dangerous information.

    This is the type of shit you get when a country embraces ignorance and helplessnesss. For 1: Cops are just citizens with badges and their competance to protect you goes downhill right with your own ability to protect yourself.

  150. Possession is Terrorism? by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    If possession of the Anarchist Cook Book is Terrorism what is possession of weapons by the UK Government? That certainly classifies as Terrorism! Oh, and they actually use them to kill people too, that is actual Terrorism carried out in fact by the Government. The UK Government is guilty of Terrorism just by possession weapons and by actually using them.

    The rule of Law doesn't work if the laws don't apply to ALL PEOPLE in the country in question. It's interesting that most laws are written to exclude members of the Government. That's very convenient way to set up a two tier society: those with immunity for crimes they commit in Governments name, and those that are subject to the laws. That's the height of arrogance by those who think that they have sovereign powers.

    Sovereign powers are an illusion created by some in order that they can rule others through force and intimidation and yes, terrorist tactics even if they are in the name of self defense.

    All those in Government are to be assumed guilty of terrorism unless otherwise proved innocent in a war crimes trial conducted by people who have never served government in any capacity what so ever. Let the war crimes investigations of world governments begin.

  151. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by _Spirit · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know your country's cuisine is in trouble when even Americans complain about it...

    --

    beauty is only a light switch away

  152. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by e4g4 · · Score: 1

    heavy anti-terrorism outfit I can just hear the marketing copy:

    New 2007 Model! Resistant to all forms* of terrorism. IRA, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, all a thing of the past! With our newest Anti-Terrorism Suit, you too can walk the streets feeling safe from radical insurgencies.

    *does not protect against eco-terrorism or the Boogie Man.

    (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
    --
    The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
  153. Re:he's being tried for possession of materials .. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism."

    Now whether that second charge requires the information to be being used to prepare for an apparent act of terrorism or not I don't know.

    No, in the UK it is an offense to possess *any* information that *may* be useful in preparation of an act of terrorism.

    This includes but is not limited to an A-Z map book of any UK city, any telephone books, the electoral roll, timetables for any public transport, tourist maps, signs indicating the location of public toilets and other amenities.

    In short, all forms of knowledge are illegal in the UK.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  154. Could be anything by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The second relates to the collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism.

    That could be anything. A road map, rail pass, bus ticket, blueprints...just about anything on paper could be useful in preparing an act of terrorism.

    This whole war on terror is getting loony. The real terrorists are probably laughing their ass off watching us twist ourselves in knots.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  155. Text as written offers NO free speech guarantees. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Actually, that's fair enough. For example, allowing blanket freedom of speech without any responsibility for the consequences is naive. I would agree in principle, but I am strongly in favor of the idea that exceptions to freedom of speech should clearly delineated and strongly limited. It would be okay if it excluded slander, causing a riot, etc. and even maybe things like pornography, but this statue's exceptions are waaaay too broad.

    I mean just the portion stating "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals" could cover literally ANYTHING. Anything at all!

    Speaking out against a politician or policy might be covered under "national security" or "prevention of disorder or crime" or even "the protection of health and morals." This clause basically eviscerates any pretension of free speech rights. If the government does like it, it can accuse you of disturbing public order, threatening national security or territorial integrity, or even advocating an immoral position. I can only imagine what would've happened to the American Civil Rights movement had our government had this huge of a loophole to go right through!
    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  156. You're not very smart are you? by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone support government censorship and not get modded to oblivion.

    As to what you said, I'm glad you are happy with the government censoring you, but frankly, I think you're an idiot. I'll take local governments who I can oust effectively, local organizations who I can sue effectively, and local individuals who I can debate effectively over the faceless machine that is the government.

    You can justify it however you like, but your point is ridiculous on its face, and the mods who modded you up deserve a KITN.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  157. UK = democratic police state by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Are you confusing police states with dictatorships?

    OP's paranoia about Brown not holding elections this year aside, the UK is still a democracy. However, it's still a police state -- a democratic police state in which the will/fears of the majority run roughshod over civil rights of those on the outskirts of society.

    The UK is in many ways what I fear the US becoming -- a country governed by fear of insecurity and a more orderly form of mob rule. It's far more likely than us directly becoming a dictatorship since we very much demand an orderly change of power on a regular schedule.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:UK = democratic police state by kraut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > OP's paranoia about Brown not holding elections this year aside, the UK is still a democracy. However, it's still a police state -- a democratic police state in which the will/fears of the majority run roughshod over civil rights of those on the outskirts of society.

      While it is true that they do occasionally have elections in the UK, calling the country a democracy is stretching the point:
      The upper house is completely unelected, and composed of a mixture of aristocrats (albeit very few now), bishops, and political appointees. But since i t has an oversight function, let's ignore that and focus on the main issue.
      The House of Commons is elected by a first past the post system which inherently ignores 50% of votes. Thanks to - deliberate or not - gerrymandering, it actually ignores a majority of voters, leading to the absurd, not to mention profoundly anti-democratic situation that the country is ruled by a party that had only 35.2% of the popular vote !

      > The UK is in many ways what I fear the US becoming -- a country governed by fear of insecurity and a more orderly form of mob rule.
      Sadly I don't see the US as less paranoia driven than the UK. By the time you add the extra dash of ignorance that dominates US public life, your odds don't look much better than ours IMHO.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
  158. Amazon is not british by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Amazon also Mein Kampf (illegal in several european countries) and David Hamillton (images illegal again in several countries but not the same) so that at least proves nothing. I thought that the book in question was on a banned list similar to Mein Kampf. IF that is not the case, my case still stands, it should be CLEAR what is illegal and what is not. IF the law in question only makes it possible to consider the anarchists cookbook illegal then that is exactly what I think is extremely wrong with the US system of freedom of speech unless we say otherwise.

    The law should never be left open to interpretation to the mood of the moment.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  159. What is this "we arrived" nonsense? by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    We've been there for years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes

    Where was all your outrage when those laws got passed?

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
    1. Re:What is this "we arrived" nonsense? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nobody keeps you from hating gays, jews, black people or people named Homer.

      What's illegal is acting on this hate.

      Which gets us back on the topic of knowing something and acting on it. Knowing something should not be illegal. Using this knowledge to cause harm should be.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  160. God bless America! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Where we have the all inclusive 1st Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (void where prohibited by law)

    --
    What?
    1. Re:God bless America! by eyendall · · Score: 1

      Balls. In America, possession of child porn makes one a pedophile. See the parallel?

  161. The real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the BBC have conveniently forgotten to mention is that the boy is part of the significant Muslim community in Dewsbury, and the intended targets were members of the British National Party (BNP) who have made inroads in said area regarding their stance on immigration to the UK.

    Regardless of the party views, they are legitimate and blowing them up is not the way to behave in a civilized society, otherwise said community would have been long gone by now for their own alleged views on the majority.

  162. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by jagdish · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam ... or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

  163. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't name names because at least one of them is litigious, but I bet you can guess).


    All of them? (I'm an American -- I know how bad ur fast food is!)
  164. But don't forget..... by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Children yes. But don't forget the retarded also.

    We like to cook them up, too.

  165. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    What would traditional American food be, by the way? I don't know anything about Native American cuisine.
    BBQ, cajun/creole, what most people think of as pizza, etc...

  166. Re:Cue the knee-jerk reaction by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    A chemistry book would actually be far better for making bombs as it actually tells you what you are doing instead of just telling you to mix shit together. Trying to make explosives without understanding what you are making is generally a stupid idea.

  167. Native American foods... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  168. Bullshit by SIIHP · · Score: 1


    "What's illegal is acting on this hate."

    Except that's already covered, and the hate crime laws cover what you THINK while acting on the hate.

    What a surprise, you rail against "thoughtcrime" yet ignore a real life example because it goes against your politics.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  169. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by digitig · · Score: 1

    what most people think of as pizza, etc... Well, if the USA can claim Pizza (the deep pan variety, I assume) as part of its tradition, then the UK can claim chicken tikka masala!
    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  170. Really? by Godji · · Score: 1

    In the UK, Possession of the Anarchist's Cookbook Is Terrorism

    Possession of what isn't an act of terrorism in the UK?

  171. Re:Factually Incorrect : We let a Hitler off the h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We tried to make Saddam an American puppet twenty years ago. Didn't work out so well...

  172. I am an anarchist, but not an antichrist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything that ISN'T a crime in the UK?

  173. Everyone is a terrorist now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can come in and access terrorist teachings like this on the internet connection hooked up to your computer, therefore you are a terrorist.

  174. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by easyTree · · Score: 1

    That's how some young children would describe any of their toys that aren't made or yellow, red and blue plastic, "bland", because their senses are dull, their appreciation for anything that doesn't blind them with primary colours is low. Same for you - your palette is that of a child. Don't feel bad though, you're not alone...

  175. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam ... or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
    Wa-fer thin mint?
  176. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by easyTree · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/v/ad8SX9xtFJg
    WHISTLE POSSE IN THa HOUSE MAKE SOME NOISE, HEZBOLLAH!! *weet* *weet* HEZBOLLAH!! *weet* *weet* HEZBOLLAH!! *weet* *weet* etc..
  177. Torrent? by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    So where's the torrent? ;P

    (uhh, J/K, to any NSA computer out there!)

  178. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by leenks · · Score: 1

    Maybe it depends on where you stay? I'm British, and while I have to generally agree that British food is crap, I've never stayed anywhere that only offers this kind of food.

  179. Let's hope........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I emigrated from the UK I left my copy with my brother.

    Let's hope he's managed to lose it in the interim....

  180. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by sr180 · · Score: 1

    Besides which, a) both hamburger and hot dogs are of German descent

    Exactly, and a good german hotdog absolutely shits all over any american hotdog. Bratwurst, Kranksi, Thurringer, Bockwurst.. When all the americans do, is use a bland version of a vienna. (and German Mustard has so much more flavour than American Mustard.

    --
    In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
  181. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
    I don't think it ever made it to the States, but there's a classic British comedy show called 'Goodness Gracious Me' (starring Sanjeev Bhaskar, Kulvinder Ghir, Meera Syal and Nina Wadia).

    They had a sketch called 'Going out for an English', in which Sanjeev asks the waiter "What's the blandest thing on the menu?"

    Most of the group opt for 'steak and kiddley pee', while Nina wimps out and has a curry.

    On the other hand, I'm a Brit, and there's plenty of fine tasty traditional food if you can find anyone prepared to cook it as it should be cooked - a Lancashire hot pot with red cabbage takes some beating, while a Bury black pudding is simply beyond compare.

    --
    One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  182. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

    Yes, you are quite right. I was nearly dead broke on my last trip to England, and the cheapest items on the menu kept coming up as bangers and eggs! I've done fairly well in the years since, and on the trip to Italy, we were able to avoid the cheaper pizza bars, and experience the really good food Italy has to offer. Still... one only has their own experiences to draw on :-)

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  183. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
    Sorry, mate, but Masala refers to the spice mix used in the dish, and the wine is spelt Marsala.

    Spot on about the Balti though - Small Heath in the late 80s was a Mecca for Balti lovers - Formica tables, piles of chapati bread and a big dish of lamb and spinach Balti (the Balti is just the name of the cast iron dish they were cooked in) evoke fond memories.

    --
    One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  184. Re:Factually Incorrect : We let a Hitler off the h by some+damn+guy · · Score: 1

    True, but it was always more complicated than that. We helped them fight Iran, because we didn't like Iran. When they started to get the upper hand, though, we backed off. We never wanted him to win, because we didn't want ANYBODY to win. The truth of the matter is we didn't like ANY of these leaders too much, but we used the fact they didn't like each other either to play them against each other and keep them weak.

    If anyone is a real puppet, it's Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family is hardly an democracy to be, but it's them or the wahabbis, and we certainly want the royals instead (plus gas). Of course we know now this pissed off at least 19 of them...

    The day we can afford to tell all those people where to stick their oil is the day everyone will be better off.

  185. Queue the outraged libertarians.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch as they call me an extremist for suggesting that crime prevention is an absurd attempt to trade freedom for security and will *never* work.

    But this isn't about crime prevention, it's about punishing someone who has already committed a crime, (ie. possession). Moreover, there is no trading of freedom here either, UK citizens have never had a right to freedom of speech.

  186. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Exactly, and a good german hotdog absolutely shits all over any american hotdog. Bratwurst, Kranksi, Thurringer, Bockwurst.. When all the americans do, is use a bland version of a vienna. (and German Mustard has so much more flavour than American Mustard.

    Bland? Have you tried American hot dogs? I don't mean the generic supermarket bland beef/pork kind, I mean a real one. It's always amazing how Europeans consistently compare the best of their food with the worst of American food.

    There's no such thing as an "American mustard". There are a huge selection of different kinds of mustards here, including the German kind.

  187. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    You know your country's cuisine is in trouble when even Americans complain about it...

    That hardly seems like a fair measure. Americans complain about anything that isn't American.

  188. information is illegal? by jtgd · · Score: 0

    How much time do I get for possessing Fahrenheit 451?

    --
    J
  189. Ironically the government used to give this out by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

    Have you ever read "A man called Intrepid?" The British Secret Service in WW2 used to hand out such information to partisans (printed on rice paper so it could be eaten or otherwise easily destroyed by captured agents) and to their own citizens at the time when they feared invasion. During WW2, they were actively organizing a guerilla warfare campaign in occupied europe, and preparing a campaign of resistance given the real possibility that they themselves would be overrun by Hitler.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  190. Re:Japan by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    The often neglected factor in the surrender of Japan was Russia. The US did not want Stalin to come late and get a piece of the cake, so a hasty end had to be made and the Bombs fell. History books often omit this.

  191. Deleting photos from cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the following day an elected MP's camera was wiped because he had taken pictures of the queues to get in. And just hope it isn't a Linux Slashdot geek with more data recovery software than the DoD... Seriously, "deleting" photos from a camera is absolutely useless. Even questioning people about the use of cameras is a waste of time. If anyone was up to mischief, they could easily just have a fake button on their shirt hiding tiny a pinhole camera. Or a camera which was modified to upload images in realtime over a wireless link (mobile phones being just one example). Or telescopic lenses from a very long distance away, pre-hidden fiber optic cameras, etc. Of course, all of this stuff is "off the shelf" and easily obtainable.

    Although we all know it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with preventing embarrassment and criticism. The uselessness of security through obscurity doesn't matter if you don't care about security in the first place.
  192. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Meski · · Score: 1

    Think bangers == SPAM, and you wont go wrong

  193. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by adavidw · · Score: 1

    A few months back, I unchecked the Zonk checkbox and then the kdawson checkbox since both "editors" seem to be clueless. However, there was a time a week or two ago when I loaded up the Slashdot homepage and realized that the newest stories were almost two days old. I thought maybe my browser wasn't refreshing, so after hitting F5 a few times and clearing my cache with no effect, I thought someone must have died or something. It took me another minute or two to remember I had muted Zonk and kdawson. After I went and rechecked the boxes again, I reloaded the page to discover that they were the only two to have posted stories in that whole time.

    So, yeah, uncheck Zonk and you miss half of Slashdot. Uncheck kdawson and you miss the other half. So, you've got to choose between having the sensationalistic retard dupes and asshattery of Zonk and kdawson, or having no Slashdot at all. There is a third option, of course. Dump Zonk and kdawson, and let the few remaining intelligent editors make up the difference.

  194. Ah, the fun of word play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I have a 4kg canister of pure military-research-lab-grade dihydrogen oxide (an extremely potent agent critical to the manufacture of high grade explosives). And I have a 2kg canister of denatured hydroxyethane which is also highly volatile and flammable - it can be used in high-impulse thermobaric weapons.

    If you start to mix some of these sorts of ingredients together (BE CAREFUL, THEY'RE VERY DANGEROUS!), you could have a terrorist bomb in no time.

    In my case there is no need for alarm, as they're not under my bed.

  195. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by mei_mei_mei · · Score: 1

    French Fries? You've GOT to be kidding! Have you ever even tried chips? (And I'm not talking about crisps!)

  196. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curry.

  197. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by PastaLover · · Score: 1

    It's not just the UK government. People have been convicted in various countries, including the US, for what in essence amount to throught crimes. I'm afraid I didn't bookmark it but how about the guy who was convicted in part for having prayer notes in his appartment that were linked to Al Qaeda by US prosecuters? All of the evidence in his case was very circumstantial and it's mostly a guity by association kind of thing. If your nephew is a terrorist then so must you be right? I mean you talked to him just 2 months ago!

    I'm afraid to look this stuff up, I really don't want to know how fast we're throwing justice out with the bathwater.

  198. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have that much of a problem with Slashdot, maybe it's time to face the fact that you'd be happier at digg or ebaums world or something. Unless it's finding things to groan about that really makes you happy.

  199. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by TrentTheThief · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Umm... The book is available in UK bookstores. It's also available from amazon.co.uk.

    So. If you own an upper level chemistry text book you're probably in trouble as well. Or heaven forbid, if frequent hobbyist rocketry websites or worse, participate!

    The Anarchist's Cookbook is no more dangerous than any of the dozens of military manuals that turn up in used booksellers.

    You understand that the intent here is not to punish that stupid git but to set the stage for moving on Iran. You can't very well invade or attack a new country without some fresh outrage.

    It's really sad that the US has let bush wave the bloody shirt for seven years now, and that blair facilitated it.

    I'm not one to run from trouble. I supported the efforts in Afghanistan. Also those in Iraq. For awhile, at least. I'm now of the opinion that bush is dangerously deranged. He has no military experience whatsoever that could provide him with any useful knowledge to prosecute a war, yet congress and the citizenry have let him do just that. This is tantamount to allowing a building maintenance person at a medical school perform open-heart surgery on your child.

    You really have to be aware of how and why certain things are published in news sources. Do your own research. Most of all, think for yourself. Don't accept the world of a politician for anything. If you trust a politician to guide your thoughts you're probably the same sort person who would let a pedophile babysit your children and then wonder why they always come home with a sore ass.

  200. Re:What is american food? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and don't use the cheap/disgusting parts of the animal like tongue, stomach, high fat areas."

    Hmm. An odd dichotomy here. We, unlike "noble savages" are so wasteful of our foodstuffs. Yet when we find that sausages are mechanically recovered meat (and ears, noses etc) we go eeuuuwwww.

    As to the list, these appear in UK dinners often:

    Apple Pie, the casserole family (broccoli, hamburger, etc), bacon & eggs either scrambled on toast or cooked sunnyside up,, steak or pot roast with mashed potatoes and gravy.

    And one thing that is definitively British is the steamed pudding.

    We also have a great quisine for leftovers (such as the hotpot and caserole) but also bubble and squeak, cobbler, bangers and mash, faggots, stew, spotted dick and upside down pudding.

    British food is much like northern europe food because it's cold (so you have the fire on all the time) and so you don't mind using cheap old meat because you'll cook it slow over the day. That means you get to shear the sheep, milk the cow or breed the pigs for a long time and THEN terminate it's productivity by cooking it at the end of a long life. This old meat does require a lot of sauce (e.g. good gravy) to ensure it stays moist and some herbs and so on help bring out flavours (which are more plentiful in wet britain than freezing norway), so the flavours of stews are important and easy to get.

  201. Pasties and sandwiches too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sandwich was basically something to hold the filling in a hand-friendly package. Pasties were the ORIGINAL packed lunch. Old-style was one half savoury (rabbit, chichen, pork, steak, etc) and the other half sweet (jam or similar). One half main course, the other the pudding. Only one clean package to eat.

  202. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear..." - Herbert Sebastien Agar

  203. Democracy by alexo · · Score: 1

    The House of Commons is elected by a first past the post system which inherently ignores 50% of votes. Thanks to - deliberate or not - gerrymandering, it actually ignores a majority of voters, leading to the absurd, not to mention profoundly anti-democratic situation that the country is ruled by a party that had only 35.2% of the popular vote!
    We have a similar situation in Canada.

    The Ontario general election on October 10 (tomorrow) will include a referendum on replacing the current "first past the post" system with a "mixed member proportional" one.

    Unfortunately, the both largest parties (Liberals and PC) have been flooding the media with FUD and got most people convinced to vote against it.

    Between the ignorant voting against it and the apathetic not showing up, I have very low expectations of it passing.
  204. NIce try limeys by SIIHP · · Score: 1

    But modding me down doesn't make that swill you call food any better, you snaggletooth fucks.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  205. *Snipy* *Snipy* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cut the carnivore ACs balls off! I shot and ate the vegetarian AC!

    Hah! (love AC flame wars)

  206. Re:Quit sensationalizing everything by adavidw · · Score: 1

    Nah, digg or ebaums is way worse.

    I like Slashdot. I want it to be better. That's what would make me happy.

  207. Library censorship: not currently a problem by LandruBek · · Score: 1
    I don't mean to be condescending, but we have a fairly complicated hierarchy of governments that is hard for many across the pond to grasp. I think that is what is going on here. Far be it from me to claim America is a beacon of freedom, but fortunately library censorship is not currently a big problem.

    The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.

    You are right that the US is very different. I did not realize the people of Holland allowed the government to ban the books they could read. Seems unwise -- O Holland, arise!

    Library funding is not monolithic, as you seem to suggest. Libraries are for the most part funded by city and county municipalities across the fifty states, which makes them extremely decentralized. There are several thousand such independent governments in the USA. They really are quite independent, too: they collect their own taxes and elect their own politicians. Excluding school libraries (which are often censored), libraries are so far outside the bailiwick of the federal government that it would be almost impossible for them to influence acquisitions on a large scale. Most importantly, the current ethos of librarians is, fortunately, extremely in favor of privacy and intellectual freedom. Book censorship in libraries is not currently a problem area, thanks in large measure to these professional bulldogs for freedom.

    Non-government imposed "censorship" is a problem in other areas, such as take-down notices on YouTube for meritless copyright infringement claims, or (some say) in academia. But the feds aren't responsible for this.

    And of course the current government is an appalling mess regarding
    . . . and I am at least as disgusted as you are.
    --
    $META_SIG_JOKE
  208. "A Force More Powerful" by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

    I heard a talk by Peter Ackerman of this organization, discussing the history of nonviolent revolution in the 20th Century and arguing that it's more effective than violence at replacing tyrannical governments with democratic ones. I asked him about the rise of mass surveillance and how that would affect nonviolent strategy, and his position seemed to be that people will still find a way to play cat-and-mouse with repressive governments through continued competition. (See eg. the recent article on Chinese censorship.) Still, I'm skeptical of how any resistance movement could work in a country where there's effectively a low-level AI assigned to monitoring every single person at all times. The best defense against an oppressive state may be to force transparency on government, as David Brin has argued in "The Transparent Society."

    --
    Revive the Constitution.