Students Downloading Jihadist Material Acquitted

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Five UK students who were charged under the UK's 2000 Terrorism Act for possession of jihadist materials were acquitted after the jury found that, while they had downloaded the materials, there was no evidence that they were planning any sort of crime. The Lord Chief Justice was quoted as saying, 'Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use [this law] for a purpose for which it was not intended.'"

Comments

Free speech in the UK?

[Brian Gordon]

Well at least it's good to see that it's not a complete mudslide..

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[jd]

The British courts also ruled that a schizophrenic that thought himself the reincarnation of King Arthur saner than the Conservative Home Office. The courts tend to be less political and a lot saner than the politicos. The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left. It's hard to buy out a group that need no money and own most of the land. It's hard to get them to be entirely sane, but so long as they're educated, it's a useful group to have as a transient mechanism until society has matured and that group's function is to bring society into maturation. The problem society has to face is that it isn't maturing. If it was, it wouldn't be repeating history. Athens and Wu went bankrupt from wars and got invaded in turn. Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan found their delusions of power run out through their fingers in their later years, and their deaths caused catastrophic collapses of what could meaningfully be called epic proportions. The systems are probably fine, but a car is fine... if you've the maturity to drive one.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[kamapuaa]

If you're trying to use history to sound smart and add gravitas to your argument, you shouldn't be so entirely ignorant and incorrect about it. Athens didn't go bankrupt from wars before the Peloponnesian War (which I assume you were referring to), it led an economic league that was at the height of its powers and ruled Mediterranean trade. Wu didn't go bankrupt, perhaps you were thinking of the Shu kingdom but more likely you were talking out of your ass, anyway the country was invaded many years after repeatedly defending itself from invasion, and was clearly the least offensive of the three kingdoms, and probably the most economically successful.

Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan didn't just have delusions of power that poetically "slipped through their fingers"- they each ruled huge, expanding empires at the time of their deaths. Genghis Khan's descendants went on to rule what would become the largest empire ever.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left. It's hard to buy out a group that need no money and own most of the land. It's hard to get them to be entirely sane, but so long as they're educated, it's a useful group to have..."

Good Lord, another madman!!

I thought I was the only one in the UK who realised that, for a system to work, you need balancing pressures, and a hereditary Lords is an ideal unbribable chamber. All politicians are easily corrupted, and paying them more only makes them greedier.

I have idle daydreams of a UK society where we reduce the Commons to the collection of merchants which it was in Elizabeth 1's day, and bring back the 'Lords spiritual and temporal'. Each Baron or Earl could be relied upon to do the best for their area, because they would live off the proceeds, and if they were found to be behaving dishonourably, they could be banished from court. This would essentially make the press responsible for policing the system - and that's essentially what's happening now....

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I was the only one in the UK who realised that, for a system to work, you need balancing pressures, and a hereditary Lords is an ideal unbribable chamber. All politicians are easily corrupted, and paying them more only makes them greedier.

The best way to fight corruption is to grant substantial political power to a bunch of people with absolutely no qualifications, but who aren't politicians? It's amazing more people in the UK don't subscribe to that.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[ddrichardson]

I don't like to whinge but this is really starting to bug me, there are no British courts. There is English law based on precedent and Scots law based on jurisprudence.

It may seem like a semantic difference but it is in fact like saying North American law rather than Canadian and US. It is also important to Scots historically because it is one of the few things that were kept after the act of union with England.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Paul Jakma]

Well, the life peers *do* tend to be qualified. They got there, in theory, by being eminent enough for some government to appoint them (unfortunately it seems new Labour has been "selling" life peerages). At least some lords *must* be eminent enough to be Chief Justices of the english and/or scottish bars, for the Lords acts as the court of last resort in the United Kingdom.

Whatever conceptual problems you find in how they are selected, the lords has, and does, provide a check on the government, particularly with regard to more authoritarian power-grabs. However, the lords can not obstruct indefinitely. They are, to my admittedly not terribly-well-informed eye, much more effective than similarly empowered upper-houses in other countries where the appointments to those houses are instead political, e.g. the Seanad in Ireland.

Where the lords is quite prepared to block OTT legislation in the UK, the Seanad rarely rises above being a comfy talking shop for pensioned politicos and some others, no doubt mindful that to act against the popular wisdom of the day could cost them at the next election. In other words, a near useless upper-house (AFAICT).

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Athens didn't go bankrupt from wars before the Peloponnesian War (which I assume you were referring to), it led an economic league that was at the height of its powers and ruled Mediterranean trade.

So you are saying that before the war, it was an economic superpower, and after the war, it wasn't? Sounds like you are making his point for him.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Ash Vince]

The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left. Sorry, You seem confused. They are two different entities both called the House of Lords.

The House of Lords in the context or parliament is the non-democratically selected load of old codgers that was gutted by both parties in an attempt to make the British political system more responsive to change.

The House of Lords in the context of Law is the English equivalent of the Supreme Court. The Lords who sit and decide cases in regards to law are only selected from high ranking judges.

They also get to sit in the Parliamentary House of Lords above but this does not work both ways. The Hereditary Peers (land owners who inherited their position in the Parliamentary House of Lords) have never been able to sit as Law Lords unless they also trained to be a barrister then spent their entire life practicing Law first.

The only exception to this when all Lords (not just Law Lords) can decide a case is in the case of impeachment.

Your comment about them owning most of the land implies that you think both bodies to be the same thing, they are not.

The following wikipedia page has some interesting info, pay attention to the section marked Judicial Functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[susano_otter]

RTFA much?

The investigation started when one of the students ran away from home and left behind a note saying he was going to fight abroad. And what does the investigation turn up? Jihadist materials on his computer.

Not so much a free speech issue as a suspected fucking terrorist issue.

Seems like things worked out pretty well for these five students, all things considered. The one who left the note came home a few days later, which was probably a critical piece of evidence in his favor, and instrumental in ultimately getting the original conviction overturned.

Evidence of conspiracy isn't free speech, it's evidence of conspiracy.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[freeweed]

It may seem like a semantic difference but it is in fact like saying North American law rather than Canadian and US.

Actually, it sounds more to me like saying Canadian law rather than Ontario and Quebec.

The difference between Canada/US and England/Scotland is the very act of union you mention. Canada and the US are completely sovereign nations. No acts of union between the two. No common anything beyond trade agreements and language.

Hell, the Irish had to fight how many wars to gain independence from the UK? Canada doesn't need that - because it's a completely separate country from the US. You can't really say the same about the UK.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[ddrichardson]

Hell, the Irish had to fight how many wars to gain independence from the UK?

Two or arguably three - The Easter rising in 1916, War of Independence in 1919 leading to civil war ending in 1923. What this has to do with anything I'm unsure.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[jd]

Responsive to change? No, responsive to big industry. They came to power through merit (well, in theory - practice is another matter) rather than through elections, so they were indeed representative, but representative of (a) a different demographic, and (b) in principle much harder to corrupt, so an excellent method of counter-balancing the wild excesses of extremist Governments.

The Law Lords are from the House of Lords and thus a subset of the House of Lords. Distinguishing one from the other is absurd in the extreme, as anyone in the House of Lords could be appointed a Law Lord, although it was generally someone knowlegeable in the Law. This is why the two bodies have the same name. They are the same, in the sense that one is a subset of the other.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[drsquare]

I thought I was the only one in the UK who realised that, for a system to work, you need balancing pressures, and a hereditary Lords is an ideal unbribable chamber. All politicians are easily corrupted, and paying them more only makes them greedier.

Yes, what could be more balancing that a load of people who have no accountability, who cannot be removed, and whose only qualification is that they were born into priviledge.

Who needs democracy anyway? Let's just pay tribute to our local knights and barons, and keep our heads down in the fields. And if you think a lord can't be bribed, you're fucking deluded.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Fizzog]

"...left behind a note saying he was going to fight abroad ... Not so much a free speech issue as a suspected fucking terrorist issue."

So by your reasoning all of the Americans who went to Europe to fight against the Germans in 1939/40 (before the USA was in the war) were terrorists?

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[mcpheat]

The difference between Canada/US and England/Scotland is the very act of union you mention. Canada and the US are completely sovereign nations. No acts of union between the two.
The act of union explicitly guarantees the independance of the Scottish legal system, there are 3 separate legal systems in the UK.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[susano_otter]

I'm sure that after reviewing the anti-Nazi propaganda carried and disseminated by those Americans, their professed allegiance to anti-Nazi causes, and their taking up arms against the Nazis, Nazi German quite rightly concluded that they were enemies of the Nazi state and treated them as such. On the other hand, the American government probably raised no objections to their anti-Nazi "jihad", seeing as how the American government was the entity promoting it.

See how that works? It's the purported targets of the aggression and their allies that object to it, not the ones promoting the aggression. Since the United Kingdom has ample reason to consider itself both a jihadist target and an ally of jihadist targets, it's quite reasonable for them to treat jihadists as enemies of the state, investigate allegations of jihadist activity, and detain suspected jihadists based on the evidence of jihadist activity they have uncovered.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Ash Vince]

The Law Lords are from the House of Lords and thus a subset of the House of Lords. Distinguishing one from the other is absurd in the extreme, as anyone in the House of Lords could be appointed a Law Lord, although it was generally someone knowlegeable in the Law. No, the only people who get to sit as Law Lords are Lords with a Legal Background.

Mirror?

[anagama]

Where's a mirror? I'd like to read ....

hang on, someone's at the door.

Re:Mirror?

[Brian Gordon]

the government can't catch you as long as you use a foreign-based prox-- brb door

Re:Mirror?

[evanbd]

Of course, the real place these documents should be available, is Freenet. I haven't yet checked to see if they're available, though, so I can't give you a link.

Re:Mirror?

[drcagn]

Wouldn't you just wait until after you got the door to submit?

Oh.

How novel

[AP2k]

A judiciary.... adhereing to the spirit of the law. Brilliant!

Re:How novel

[Swampash]

Obviously not an American court.

Re:How novel

[AndGodSed]

For once the crazies lost a case!

Re:How novel

[RealGrouchy]

Good thing they don't allow these freedom-hating activist judges in America.

(...and a preemptive nod to the sarcasm-hating mods out there, sigh)

- RG>

Re:How novel

[arivanov]

Not for long. Josef Vissarionovich Brown and Lavretnij Pavlovich Straw will be amending the legislation shortly and the Congress of People's Deputies will vote for it in the next session based on suggestions of the Central Committee.

This more or less describes the current situation in the Union of Soviet British Republics.

I got my MP on the similar case when a man was disallowed basic chemistry refresher course for thoughtcrime and he got as far as the Home Office. At that point Lavrentij Pavlovich Straw henchmen told him to f*** off. And there is bugger all he can do and because the man is on a control order there is nothing the courts can do either.

Re:How novel

[mdwh2]

My impression of it is that the law required there to be evidence of terrorist intent, so they were following not just the spirit, but the actual wording of the law itself, and the original prosecution wrongly interpreted the law more broadly.

Had the Government simply criminalised simple possession alone (as it wants to do with some other things it doesn't like, e.g., pr0n), then chances are they wouldn't have been acquitted. In fact it wouldn't surprise me that it sees this case as a "loophole" that needs to be closed in order to "fight terrorism"...

Re:How novel

[sm62704]

Busted for possession of literature? It's good to know that we Americans aren't the only ones losing our rights. Or would "loosing" be a more appropriate word here, given the circumstances?

-mcgrew

Re:How novel

[Nimey]

Obviously you furriners believe in activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges!

Re:How novel

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh.

I figure it's just a fad.

Well, they are just students, after all.

[that this is not und]

It might seem like flamebait to say this, but people in their student years are always trying different things out. It's hard for older people to take them seriously sometimes, but that's how its always been.

I remember those days, far back in the distance. As a young campus radical, I remember the way the older, more seasoned off-campus radicals would look at us, with our newfound enthusiasm, and willingness to embrace any new idea. No slogan, no campaign is too outlandish when you're young and inexperienced.

Grumpy older people need to give those younger than themselves some slack. Hell, if the world took every angry-young-man at face value, we'd ALL be in jail.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Brian Gordon]

It's hard for older people to take them not seriously. They've seen too many real terrorists and serious threats to give some kids messing around any slack.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Repton]

Really? How many real terrorists have you seen?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, if the world took every angry-young-man at face value, we'd ALL be in jail.

If you really get to know anyone who works as a prosecutor or in law enforcement, you'll soon find out that they want as many people (err, males) as possible to be in jail. That is just how they think. The problem is when they are provided with arbitrary authority to act out on their impulse to imprison or dominate everyone else. Soccer mom politics of paranoid fear have provided law enforcement the authority to arrest and detain anyone who appears to actually have a pair of testicles. In the U.S., being a young radical is so far beyond the pale of what is socially acceptable that it has essentially ended. Absolute political stagnation and a decay of our greatness has been the inevitable result.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[anagama]

I saw Bush and Cheney on youtube once. So that makes two for me.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Marful]

They've != I've

Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into google will explain to you pretty quickly the age range of suicide bombers.

So I believe the person whom you were responding too was making a valid observation.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Young campus radicals like your former self formed the Weather Underground, SLA, RAF, and other terrorist groups. These actually did shoot people, rob banks, and blow up buildings. And these were in the tame days of the 70s, when you had to give people bomb instructions by hand, or photocopy.

Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals. I'm sure your "information wants to be free" types will be out here defending it, but let's be honest, your average Muhammad isn't going to build his own bomb so he can ride the subway without reading instructions on how to do so. Racist skinheads also use online materials to self-radicalize, and I bet that nobody here would be against coming down hard on them.

Examples of people making the jump from online materials to radical Islam are the two leading members of the cell responsible for the July 7, 2005, London bombings -- Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shahzad Tanweer. Both had life-changing experiences through their exposure to online materials, though by 2001 the men had left the Tablighi mosque they had been attending in the British city of Beeston, because they found it to be too apolitical. They apparently were frustrated by the mosque's elders, who forbid the discussion of politics in the mosque.

After Khan and Tanweer left the Tablighi mosque, they began attending the smaller Iqra Learning Center bookstore in Beeston, where they reportedly were exposed to frequent political discussions about places such as Iraq, Kashmir and Chechnya. The store's proprietors reportedly even produced jihad videos depicting crimes by the West against the Muslim world. Exposed to this environment, the two men eventually became radicalized to the point of traveling to Pakistan to attend a terrorist training camp and then returning to the United Kingdom to plan and execute a suicide attack that resulted in the death of them both.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

I agree 100% .... never used a blue/red/black/whatever color phreaking box, still owned the manual because I was interested (would never have worked in Europe anyways). Never was a social democrat, still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view. Also owned the terrorists' handbook to obtain interesting information. Do I want to blow stuff up? Well. maybe coke cans in myh backyard, but definetely not US soldiers or the president. Still as a learning person I THINK knowing how to make a bomb, how to shoot a rifle or how to pick a lock might come handy. Hey could even save my life.

Would I download jihadist material? Well, maybe it would not come too much handy, but it is definitely interesting. Hey it could even save your (or others lives).

This is censorship. Wrong censorship. People download stuff available to download. Whatever it is. Video, text file, program ...... just see more of this world. They should explain it why it is wrong, not forbid to see an other point of view at all.

just my 2c .....

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[FooAtWFU]

This is the UK. I have three letters for you, and they don't stand for Individual Retirement Account.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[smurgy]

Quite. I will always remember one student friend denouncing another as a fascist for daring to make the radical remark that if he had a wife and family he would deem it appropriate to pursue a career in order to provide for them.

Said friend now fights to bring about socialist utopia by selling computers at a major retailer. Vive la revolution!

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jhol13]

It's hard for older people to take them seriously sometimes, but that's how its always been. No. The older have themselves been younger.

The problem is that it is impossible for the older to know when the kids take the stuff (too) seriously. Kids, OTOH, do not "trust" the elders, and this has always been the same.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Das Modell]

You seem rather naive about Jihad. It's not some silly ideological bandwagon for teenagers, it's holy war against infidels. Jihadists kill people, or at least try to. Many Muslim youths have left their homes in the West to join the global Jihad.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Cassius Corodes]

If you had actually read Mein Kampf you would have discovered Hitler wasn't a social democrat but a national socialist.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah]

Seriously?

Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?" It's the new boogey-man word designed to scare everyone into complacency while we cower in our homes and allow things like warrantless wire-tapping to occur.

But I'm getting off topic. America was founded by "terrorists." As was any country who's government was established by any revolution, civil war, or coup; they were all started by a few "terrorists" (with few exceptions, I suppose).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

...Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals...

Your arguments are not very well thought out. Perhaps a review of causality, particularily the areas of necessary causes and sufficient causes would help.

Those who seek to control/decide what we can and cannot read, what we can and cannot be taught, what we can and cannot know, and what we can and cannot think are the real terrorists. Those are the people that we should be very afraid of and we should fight endlessly against them to preserve our freedom to think for ourselves.

Some would seek to control the information that people can know about. That breeds fear (of the unknown) and thus reinforces the need to strip more rights and freedoms in the name of security. America is already caught in this feed-back loop.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Mr. Slippery]

Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals.

"Jihadist" and "internet" are irrelevant. Reading stuff, from Common Sense to Mein Kampf to Letter from Birmingham Jail, is one of the ways that people become radicals - whether radical haters, or radical workers for justice.

Racist skinheads also use online materials to self-radicalize, and I bet that nobody here would be against coming down hard on them.

If "coming down hard" means using the violence of government censorship in a futile attempt to prevent other violence, I'd be against it.

They apparently were frustrated by the mosque's elders, who forbid the discussion of politics in the mosque.

Let's see here: certain discussions are forbidden. People therefore have them underground, in a context of ignorance. Violence results. Your example argues for frank and open discussion, not for censorship.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[milsoRgen]

Yes information can be life changing, but let us leave it up the person exposed to that information make the decision to break the law. Not let the law the decide what information can be disseminated.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Are you aware of what the word 'acquitted' means? Finally a piece of good news.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Das Modell]

Flamebait.

Great. The leftist thugs of Slashdot are still persecuting me in full force.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[martinX]

Simply downloading and reading is not a crime. I've read Mein Kampf and I'm not a Nazi, I've read the bomb-maker's guide and I don't blow shit up, I saw LOTR and I'm not going on a silly quest. The cops need to look for more than this for a crime.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[CannonballHead]

Ah, I believe this is very historically false. Revolution, civil war, and coup are not all necessarily acts of terrorism. Certainly, in the case of the American revolution, it was an open war. It was, if I may use the two terms in the same sentence, a somewhat honorable war in this: the US (not exactly the "US" at that time) declared that they were independent of Britain; Britain sent military force to subdue their "colonies," and the "US" fought back. That's very different from various peoples usually adhering to a certain religious idea (radical Islam, for example) simply trying to create fear and destruction because they oppose what another country stands for.

"Terrorist" is the new "Nazi." Except even the Nazis at least somewhat openly declared war, and were associated with a nation. The problem with modern-day terrorists is that they come from an ideological view without officially being tied to a country; if all these terrorists that blow up various western civilizations (yes, they have it out for western civilization and non-Muslims, not just the US or Britain) were really officially the Iran National Army, I doubt Iran would last very long. However, whether or not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unofficially or secretly helping terrorists is a lot harder to figure out.

I'll give an analogy. Imagine that suddenly, a sect of Christianity began to strike blow up various sites that it deemed were havens for atheists (e.g., liberal "atheist" universities, or something). There'd be a huge outcry against that. However, it's hard to take military action to stop it, because the "Christians" would not be associated with a specific country.

Another example. Let's say that a variety of Americans began bombing all sorts Eastern civilizations, various places. Terrorism, basically, but this time Western going for the East. That'd be a big deal, and it'd be hard to fight against.

There's the problem. How do you stop independent (seemingly, at any rate, it's hard to tell) citizens from acts of terrorism? In the case of Islamic terrorists, should we go after countries that apparently knowingly harbor/support them? Reverse the tables; if American citizens were randomly blowing up Islamic sites, would you support forcing the US to do something about it?

Frankly, I think there's a big double standard. It's one thing for a country to declare war and officially fight; it's another to try to maintain an official peace while letting its citizens (without much apparent concern for it, if not actually supporting the activity) commit acts of terrorism from a purely ideological and religious standpoint.

One last note... I'm not sure communism is a "boogey-man" word. Tell some Korean or Vietnamese people that communism is really just a boogey-man. You might find the ones that actually know what communism is, stands for, and does of a differing opinion than, say, Americans who really know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc.

IMO, no matter how bad you think ANY US president was, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't particularly have wanted to be a citizen under Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, or Hussein. We even still have the freedom to criticize presidents. Without getting killed.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Mathinker]

> Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into ...

The point of the reply (which you missed) was that you should rather have typed in "frequency of suicide bombing".

And of all of those not so frequent suicide bombings, exactly one attack has had significant economic impact, and that was 9/11. The efficient way to have prevented 9/11's economic impact would have been to have had locked cockpit doors, not to fantasize that it is possible (and desirable) to make the world into a police state where no one has access to "jihadist materials" (the fantasy being the lack of access, of course).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[milsoRgen]

saw LOTR and I'm not going on a silly quest. Next your going to tell me Beren's quest to wrest a Silmarill from the crown of Morgoth was silly. I take offense sir, it was the efforts of many, not the least of which Frodo. That have allowed us to have this discourse without being persecuted by the dark ones minions!

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never was a social democrat, still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view."

I really hope this was a typo...

Otherwise, your level of historical understanding is frighteningly bad.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Dutch Gun]

America was founded by "terrorists." No, America was founded by "rebels". There's a huge difference. Those "rebels" did not use terror to achieve political aims. They used military force, by raising an army in the field, building our own seagoing attack vessels (pretty much was useless, read some history for some amusing / interesting tales), and enlisting the help of foreign nationals (the French).

Americans were criticized for unsportsmanlike conduct, such as specific targeting of officers by sharpshooters. But it's a complete myth that we fought the British mostly by small skirmishes. The simple fact was, it was a large standing army, fought in traditional fashion, that eventually defeated the British (with the help of a Naval blockade). George Washington led this army from the front lines, and it's a miracle he was never even touched by a bullet or cannon fire.

I know that America-bashing is all the rage these days, but to casually equate the folks who founded the US with modern terrorism is such a ridiculous notion, I really don't even know where to begin except to recommend you educate yourself. Yes, it's foolish to believe that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, or not without faults, but all in all, they were a remarkable group of people who are worth learning about with an open mind.

I've got no qualms about making sure hard-won liberties are not easily surrendered, but leave our "rebel" ancestors out of this.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah]

First off, my point was that both words are simply being used to induce fear; "terrorist" to justify the stripping of civil liberties in the interest of "security", and "communist" as a rationale for nuclear proliferation and a huge military-industrial complex. Both are "boogey-man" words in the sense that they are being used to induce fear and complacency in the American public. I wasn't commenting on the technical, idealogical, or philosophical meaning of either; I was commenting on their use as propaganda in the US to sway public opinion.

Second, if you want to get technical, before the USA became the USA it was a group of British colonies. A few men within those colonies took up arms and committed acts that could be loosely defined as terrorism before the movement became a revolution and the colonies declared independence. The British would've called them terrorists at the time, not revolutionaries. Again, propaganda is far removed from fact.

Your points are all valid and I agree with you, but I think you misconstrued the point I was making (or I wasn't very clear about it). Well... I agree with you for the most part, but I will say that someone like Stalin used Communism as an excuse for Totalitarianism; Communism was ruined as soon as Humans got involved.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah]

Don't accuse me of America-bashing, please. I was speaking in terms of the words as tools of propaganda. I'm glad you're patriotic and so am I, but a rebel can surely be called a terrorist by those whom they're rebelling against.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Das Modell]

Where did I say downloading is a crime?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[bladesjester]

Kids, OTOH, do not "trust" the elders,

And when it comes to things like government, they *shouldn't* trust the elders because the watchers need to be watched. Not to mention the fact that many politicians are not acting in the best interest of the people which they are supposed to serve even if they aren't being downright hostile to their constituents.

Blindly trusting and following a government, among other things, leads to the erosion of rights - slowly over a period of decades, and it seems that the realization that this is what has been happening both in the US and the UK is starting to dawn on mainstream society. Whether or not the populace will try to change that is yet to be seen.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jeevesbond]

still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view.

My grandfather was a spy during part of the Second World War. He worked mostly in Spain (was from Argentina, so could speak good Spanish), helping people escape Franco's rule. He smuggled a copy of Mein Kampf home. We've still got it, an original complete with Hitler signature stamp. Doesn't make the bloke a Nazi though, he just wanted to find out what was going through Hitler's demented mind.

The more works like this are swept under the carpet, the less chance we have of understanding the followers of their doctrines. Forcing any sort of extremist material underground just makes it interesting, seems politicians are unaware of the Streisand Effect.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[CannonballHead]

I guess I would agree that "terrorism" can be misused/used as propaganda, and I agree about communism as well (IMO, it would never work because of what humans are); however, I think modern day terrorists are a real threat and does justify action... and while people might disagree about exactly what action is necessary, I don't think we should dismiss it as though it were unimportant or not a thread (nor do I personally think that peaceful diplomacy will do a whole lot, simply because of why these particular terrorists are terrorists).

As for Britain, the off topic historical question, I would argue that they would not have called them terrorists so much as "rebels." Sort of like how the Union viewed the Confederacy. Terrorism and rebellion are significantly different, if only that rebellion takes place in your own country, whereas terrorism seems to be against another country... which is why, for example, in Iraq, Iraqi "terrorism" (Iraqi extremists committing terrorist acts in Iraq) is called insurrection... an armed rebellion, if you will.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[TubeSteak]

This is the UK. I have three letters for you, and they don't stand for Individual Retirement Account. You did your job too well in stamping out terrorism.
Now nobody in the US even thinks "IRA" when terrorism comes up.
Ditto for the Germans, Italians, Greeks, and French.

Not to mention that the current election frenzy is drowning out a lot of other news:
http://news.google.com/news?q=basque+eta
(You can see why I left out Spain)

Honestly, you Brits figured out how to deal with terrorism a long time ago and it's only the USA's fear that is driving all these new laws.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Jimithing DMB]

Young campus radicals like your former self formed the Weather Underground, SLA, RAF, and other terrorist groups. These actually did shoot people, rob banks, and blow up buildings. And these were in the tame days of the 70s, when you had to give people bomb instructions by hand, or photocopy.

People seem to have mostly forgotten that this was actually happening. The terrorists of those years get glorified as dissenters because they mingled with people who were pure dissenters. It's a very good strategy for a criminal of that sort to mix up the issue to make law enforcement's job harder.

Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals. I'm sure your "information wants to be free" types will be out here defending it, but let's be honest, your average Muhammad isn't going to build his own bomb so he can ride the subway without reading instructions on how to do so. Racist skinheads also use online materials to self-radicalize, and I bet that nobody here would be against coming down hard on them.

The best defense against this is to point out that it is propaganda. The police would have done much better to.. well, you know actually investigate the case. If they couldn't find that the students had any plans to do anything then they should have sat them down and talked with them about why these materials are dangerous. It's always the same modus operandi. Impressionable people are dissatisfied with their life in some way and are told that if they simply follow these teachings they'll be better off.

In fact, you show the clear reason why it's important to investigate these cases but to act on each one individually. You cannot just assume that any young muslim man who has read this stuff a few times has actually started believing it. You have to evaluate each person differently, perhaps even using psychologists to try to gauge whether the person is a terrorist trying to act like a student or really is just a student. You have to spend some time educating people. They could have maybe sent him to a tolerance class. You know, like make him sit down with a priest, a rabbi, and an imam and talk about what his religion (islam) means to him and why terrorism is not the answer.

They chose instead to proceed with a very weak case because they figured they could win it. And they did. Fortunately there is an appeals process and the appellate judge realized the whole thing stank. I suppose that is the nature of prosecutions though. If it looks like the law might apply and you figure you can get a jury to vote your way, you proceed with it.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[ncryptd]

This is censorship. Wrong censorship. People download stuff available to download. Whatever it is. Video, text file, program ...... just see more of this world. They should explain it why it is wrong, not forbid to see an other point of view at all. I don't know if you grew up during the BBS era, but what you're saying sounds _exactly_ like the philosophy that I and many other BBS users subscribed to.

Just imagine if downloading material related to illegal things was illegal during the BBS era... Christ, my text file collection would've guaranteed me life in prison. I had files on picking locks, building explosive devices, model rocketry, detailed write-ups of every drug known to mankind, instructions on reverse-engineering various things, war-dialers.... the list goes on and on. Not once did I use any of those files illegally: I downloaded and read the files because I was interested in them. The BBSs provided interesting libraries of completely uncensored information -- and that lack of censorship was a large part of their attraction.

Maybe I'm from a different era, but the concept of the spread of information itself being illegal is quite alien to me.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[MichailS]

Nazism = national socialism, not social democracy.

Someone else already posted it, but it needs repeating.

Actually, nazism called itself national socialism but was rather fascist despotism.
A bit like all these communist places calling themselves "The people's republic of this and that".

Sort of a self-antonym where you call something the opposite of what it is in order to fool and manipulate people.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[lixee]

Rebels would be one description. I still believe they terrorized the natives. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. The American forefathers, any way you look at it, fit that description.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[mSparks43]

No, America was founded by "rebels". There's a huge difference. Those "rebels" did not use terror to achieve political aims. They used military force, by raising an army in the field, building our own seagoing attack vessels (pretty much was useless, read some history for some amusing / interesting tales), and enlisting the help of foreign nationals (the French).

Actually, under the 2000 terrorist act, those rebels would be defined as terrorists as would most governments afaics (especially the labour government here in the UK)

From the appeal decision at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_02_08beaumont.pdf Terrorism' is defined by section 1 of the 2000 Act as including the use of firearms or explosives that endangers life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

I demand justice

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Germans might think about the IRA when terrorism comes up because the RAF had ties to them.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was speaking in terms of the words as tools of propaganda.

So your entire point was juxtaposing the US founders with an offensive term, with no real basis for the juxtaposition other than shock value? How is that anything different than being a troll? Would your argument have been any different if you have said "the US was founded by child molesters"??? You're an idiot who throws terms around without thinking about their meaning.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

America was founded primarily by people who wanted to kill Indians and take their land. That makes them worse than terrorists in my book - genocidal fascists would be a better description...

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox]

The GP poster was making a subtle political point. Of course the founding fathers of the US weren't terrorists. But under the definitions of the present US government, they would indeed be classified as such. Resistance groups fighting uniformed militaries are routinely described as "terrorists" by the US State and Defense Departments, even though the nearly-universally accepted definition of terrorism is the act of using violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political ends.

Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI, declared a wide range of non-violent groups to be terrorist threats to the United States, including Reclaim The Streets, Carnival Against Capitalism, and others. Never mind about the distinction between violence against civilians, and violence against uniformed troops: the FBI has gone on record to declare that Dancing Is Terrorism.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[meringuoid]

Germans might think about the IRA when terrorism comes up because the RAF had ties to them.

No wonder it took so long to sort out the Provos... the bloody Air Force were secretly on their side all along?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Skrynesaver]

Indeed they did, they addressed the legitimate grievances of the community the terrorists were drawn from. Essentially meeting the demands of the civil rights movement of 1968. This provided a settlement that the more effective members of the IRA could live with and while there remain a number of dissident terrorist groups they essentially a bunch of tossers as opposed to PIRA who were a genuinely capable group.

While it took 30 years for Britain to realise that they could undermine the whole terrorism nonsense by removing the underlying reasons. Of course eliminating the bogeyman by addressing legitimate Arab grievances and addressing other issues constructively might not be in the US's best interests at the moment. Having the second largest oil reserves in the world as a US military base on the other hand might be useful in the medium to long term. Just a question of what the priorities are I guess

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell more about how they rebelliously stole the land from indians. Also, enlighten us about how rebels still occupy the land all over the continent thinking it's theirs.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[stonertom]

We even still have the freedom to criticize presidents. Without getting killed. Not if they can help it.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't this be modded insightful rather than funny?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[osu-neko]

A bit like all these communist places calling themselves "The people's republic of this and that".

You forgot "democratic", e.g. DPRK - Democratic People's Republic of Korea. North Korea must be a true democracy, it says so right in the name! ;)

Sort of a self-antonym where you call something the opposite of what it is in order to fool and manipulate people.

Aka "newspeak" (cf. Orwell, 1984). Mr. Orwell didn't make all this stuff up -- he didn't have to. "The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives." In the latter part, I think Mr. Orwell underestimated both of them, or credited them with nobler intentions than I suspect they had.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?" It's the new boogey-man word designed to scare everyone into complacency while we cower in our homes and allow things like warrantless wire-tapping to occur.

Yeah, but "terrorist" is in heated competition with "police-state" as this generation's paranoia button.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[DrHyde]

According to a great American leader a few years ago, a terrorist is someone who "uses force against an established government". The treasonous colonials certainly did that!

That great American leader is Mr. George W. Bush, a terrorist by his own definition.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[KDR_11k]

Obligatory Sinfest.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100% .... never used a blue/red/black/whatever color phreaking box, still owned the manual because I was interested (would never have worked in Europe anyways). Incorrect. Blue boxes worked fine, with just a few minor changes. The most common type of phreaking done from Europe was over the CCITT C5 system, an international dialling system, where you used the same tones[1] as in the R1 system described in the US phreaking files, with the exception that you had to pulse compund 2400+2600hz to break followed by pure 2400hz to seize before you start dialing.

Internally in Europe, there was a number of different systems in use. The most common was R2, which was a close cousin of R1, with the difference being that the line idle signal was 3825Hz instead of 2600Hz, and that the MF (dual tone) pulsing done for dialing was 120Hz instead of 200Hz, and there was a higher base frequency (R1 had 700Hz, R2 had something like 1280Hz). Phreaking with this was sometimes difficult, as there was supposed to be low-pass filters on consumer lines blocking these signaling frequencies.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Dutch Gun]

Resistance groups fighting uniformed militaries are routinely described as "terrorists" by the US State and Defense Departments The American Revolution was not a resistance group. It was a regular army, fighting a war of independence, and adhered to the period's conventions of honorable warfare. So no, they would not be viewed as terrorist threats by today's laws. Let me actually quote from the document you've linked to:

International terrorism involves violent acts, or acts dangerous to human life, that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state, and which are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the police of a government, or affect the conduct of a government. This reads to me that any violent act meant to coerce a populous or government would be considered terrorism. That sounds like a reasonable definition. The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. War was waged, and the colonies were victorious.

There's a reasonable argument that could be made that the terms "resistance" and "terrorism" completely depends on which side of the battle you're siding with. After all, many historical resistance groups essentially committed acts of "terror" against occupying forces (WWII in occupied France, for example). Ultimately, though, semantics and word games are of little value, because terms are only as meaningful as they are applied to real-world scenarios.

The fact of the matter is that modern democracies of the world are, while nowhere near perfect, the best thing human freedom has going for it right now, and there are plenty of real "terrorists" out there who would love to see that come to an end. Should we become paranoid and throw away our liberty for the sake of security? Absolutely not. But neither is it worthwhile to simply dismiss everything as government propaganda, when we've all seen for ourselves what a few fanatical madmen are capable of inflicting on a largely unsuspecting population.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Carewolf]

I'll give an analogy. Imagine that suddenly, a sect of Christianity began to strike blow up various sites that it deemed were havens for atheists (e.g., liberal "atheist" universities, or something). There'd be a huge outcry against that. However, it's hard to take military action to stop it, because the "Christians" would not be associated with a specific country.

You mean like blowing up abortion clinics and sniping doctors?

Now where is the military action against the stupid red states?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[sigzero]

No, you just have a skewed view on what a terrorist is...

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[mapkinase]

And there were not a single trashbin in the tube in 1994 for a reason.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[ZiakII]

No, America was founded by "rebels".

I would typically agree with you on this comment, but tarring and feathering tax collectors and throwing them out of the city sort of a terrorist act? I think some of the certain actions done by the early American citizens went to extreme sometimes.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox]

>This reads to me that any violent act meant to coerce a populous or government would be considered terrorism. That sounds like a reasonable definition.

I respectfully submit that while your intentions may be the very best in arriving at this concise definition, in practice the terms "violent act" and "coerce" are too ambiguous and subject to political manipulation in the public media to be of use here.

>The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. War was waged, and the colonies were victorious.

It didn't stop at letter writing. The letter writing itself may not have been considered "terrorism" under present definitions, but the armed resistance certainly would have. The Zapatistas in Mexico also wrote letters to the Mexican state declaring their independence, after which they took up arms against the state. The Bush government has declared them to be "terrorists". Would you agree? If the Zapatistas are victorious, and obtain their autonomy, will they no longer be terrorists?

Menachem Begin was a member of the Irgun resistance group in pre-1948 Palestine. But after Israel's statehood was recognised and he signed a peace treaty with a neighboring country, he was granted the Nobel Peace Prize. Was he a terrorist? Did he stop being a terrorist once Israel was granted independence?

The distinction between terrorism and freedom-fighting is not semantics and word games. It's one of the most important political issues of our time, and defies all attempts to wave it away.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try to acquire the Al-Quida training manual. According to the recent BBC World broadcast, it is a combination of US and British special forces manuals applied to typical terrorist/guerrilla/resistance/freedom fighting scenarios. It might come handy for a typical citizen or a police officer of a small country in an unstable environment.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[yada21]

Young men think old men are fools; old men know young men are.

- Churchill.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

A small factual correction: The 1774-version of my family were textile merchants and mill owners in Brockton Mass. One night four 'rebels' invited the family to become rebels, leave now, or die in the fire that was about to start.

The family chose to load up and head to Canada as Loyalists. But that was a long time ago.

Inviting someone to change political orientation or die isn't what one could call enlightened use of power. Ask around in Kenya if you want some background on how effective a machete can be as an attitude adjuster in a more contemporary setting.

Rebel or Terrorist depends on who wins. The winner always gets to write the history.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Loads - I live in ireland - practically every really old person you met while growing up would tell you about their adventures taking potshots at the british b4 they left (even ones that wern't even born at the time or had fought for the brits - these terrorist are a tricky bunch). So for me even to this day the word terrorist conjours up images of slightly senile old men, half cut on guiness smelling like they need their colostomy bag changed - a dangerous bunch indeed!!

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: Do I want to blow stuff up? ... definetely not ... the president.

Please reconsider.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Brian Gordon]

How was that flamebait?!?! I'm simply saying that older people take students too seriously; they're not going to go blow up a building, they're just curious about the material. Holy crap mods, this is a new low.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[mikael]

Ironic. We condemn Afghanistan for sentencing a guy to death for reading women's rights literature, but at the same time we try to jail people for reading jihadist materials.

"Reading women's rights materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become Westernised. I'm sure your "information wants to be free" types will be out here defending it, but let's be honest, your average Muhammad isn't going to learn about women's rights so his wife can drive around by herself without reading instructions on how to do so."

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Digital Vomit]

You mean like blowing up abortion clinics and sniping doctors?

I know it's fashionable to say whatever one can to attack Christianity on /., but is the inevitable mentioning of "Christian" (and I use the term loosely) anti-abortion violence in situations really the best anti-christian attack that can be raised? A handful of attacks with a grand total of seven people killed?

Now I don't condone the blowing up of abortion clinics or the killing of people who perform abortions, but give it a rest, huh? "Christians" are not running around blowing up abortion clinics on a regular basis.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Paul Jakma]

You did your job too well in stamping out terrorism.

And note this was achieved *NOT* through police action, but through political dialogue.

(Even Thatcher had the MI5 start talking to the IRA, while talking tough about "no negotiation" in public).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Peaker]

The problem is that many people are susceptible to propaganda.
You either ban it, or you counter it with your own propaganda. You can't just publish it, the result will be worse.

I personally think it should be allowed for sale as long as it comes with the necessary explanations and counter-propaganda attached.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[CmdrGravy]

Ok, so they wrote a letter. They then proceeded to use violence against the authorised military force of the governing body which would certainly be considered terrorism by todays standards.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[vbraga]

It didn't stop at letter writing. The letter writing itself may not have been considered "terrorism" under present definitions, but the armed resistance certainly would have. The Zapatistas in Mexico also wrote letters to the Mexican state declaring their independence, after which they took up arms against the state. The Bush government has declared them to be "terrorists". Would you agree? If the Zapatistas are victorious, and obtain their autonomy, will they no longer be terrorists? Don't be ridiculous. I'm not American. But comparing the Founding Fathers to Zapatistas is pure non sense. See what our lovely terror groups on South America do after a practical independence, just look FARC controlled areas of Colombia. That's what a terrorist group do. See the US? That's what right people do.

Stop this non sense now.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

The distinction between terrorism and freedom-fighting is not semantics and word games. Of course it's semantics. The difference in meaning between any two words or expressions is semantics. That's what semantics is.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[morgan_greywolf]

Really? How many real terrorists have you seen? I met Timothy McVeigh once, a couple of years before he bombed Oklahoma City. Of course, I don't think he was terrorist then.

Does that count?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[KDR_11k]

The point was to demonstrate the shock value. This whole discussion is about the shock value of the word "terrorist".

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[stdarg]

By your definition any war is terrorism. That's obviously false. Terrorism is the use of *fear* of violence to intimidate a population or government. With terrorism you don't know when it's going to happen or how bad it will be, so you're always on edge. The whole point of it is for small, weak groups to be able to intimidate large groups, because they don't have the capability to actually cause violence to the entire population (unlike, say, an invading army).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Women's rights activists don't walk into subway cars and explode in order to kill disbelievers.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing the Founding Fathers to Zapatistas is pure nonsense, but comparing the FARC to the Zapatistas is sensible? Do us a favour.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[stdarg]

Read the rest of the quote... "However, it's hard to take military action to stop it".

A quick search shows that plenty of abortion clinic bombers are arrested, often times before the bomb even goes off.

If regular law enforcement is enough to deal with it, why would you want military action? That doesn't make sense.

When the threat grows large enough and presumptuous enough that it has "strongholds" or places of high concentration, then more militaristic action is taken.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[sm62704]

people in their student years are always trying different things out. It's hard for older people to take them seriously sometimes

How can you take someone seriously when they're listening to rap and have stupid permanent marks all over themselves? How can you take a man wearing earrings seriously?

You know why it's hard to take youth seriously. If you're twenty, how easy is it to tale a five year old seriously? I mean come on, he's got a boogger hanging from his nose and a frog in his pocket.

Once when I was about seven or eight there were a group of adults trying to figure out how to do something or other, and the solution was obvious. I kept trying to give them the answer and they kept shushing me. After a few hours they came to the same conclucions themselves.

I try to keep that in mind when I'm talking to some kid with a piercing that looks like he's got a booger hanging from his nose.

-mcgrew

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[guruevi]

Kinda like a mix of Hillary and McCain? If Bush would've been a democrat, then he might be just that.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[sm62704]

Really? How many real terrorists have you seen?

Lets see, Walmart, McDonald's, R J Reynolds, the DEA, Other US police agencies, the Justice Department (the linked AP article doesn't say shit about anybody being prosecuted for waterboarding)... how many more do you need?

-mcgrew

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Wheely]

"Actually, nazism called itself national socialism but was rather fascist despotism"

Hitler said those who think of national socialism as a political movement have not understood it at all. His "national socialism" ideas were much grander than mere politics. He and Pol Pot might have got on quite well though.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only when you make dumbass comments it seems.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[mav[LAG]]

If only this were true. The Brits basically hollowed out the IRA from the inside by infesting it with double agents. The Provos military leadership pretty much collapsed once no-one could be trusted. It was a dirty, vicious and highly effective campaign. Google Stakeknife and Kevin Fulton for more info.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still not a good definition, as it still includes war, and spies. Terrorism requires the use or threatened use of violence directed against non-military targets (i.e. civilians) in an effort to affect politics.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Ioldanach]

The American Revolution was not a resistance group. It was a regular army, fighting a war of independence, and adhered to the period's conventions of honorable warfare. So no, they would not be viewed as terrorist threats by today's laws. (snip) ... That sounds like a reasonable definition. The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. (snip)

In 1765, the Sons of Liberty were formed in response to the Stamp Act, they threatened violence upon anyone selling the stamps. (The stamps were designations that the appropriate tax had been paid on the article.) "In Boston, the Sons of Liberty burned the records of the vice-admiralty court and looted the elegant home of the chief justice, Thomas Hutchinson." - wikipedia (yes, its not a great authoritative source, but its handy and these aren't facts in dispute.)

In 1767, the Boston Massacre, a major incident where British soldiers fired upon civilians, was instigated by the civilians first mobbing and pelting the soldiers with debris.

In 1772, American patriots burned a British warship.

In 1773, a group of men dumped £10,000 worth of tea in to the harbor in the Boston Tea Party.

In 1774, in response to the passing of several British acts (The Intolerable Acts), the First Continental Congress called for the formation of militias.

In 1775, when the British sent a regiment to seize a stockpile of the growing insurgencies arms, a skirmish erupted resulting in 273 British casualties. The insurgents laid seige to Boston and eventually the British were forced to evacuate the city.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was issued.

Now, I've made sure to cast the revolutionaries in a poor light, here, because that's the sort of news the British would be receiving back in London. It wasn't until after the battle of Concord and Lexington in 1775 that the Continental Army would formally be created.

So, terrorists or not?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Igarden2]

The failure of the government to provide any substantial proof of intent tells me that these young men were "curious", not malevolent. Think about all of the tools available to government to investigate such cases. If these young men intended to do something harmful, I think it would have been found out.

On a slightly different note, I read Malik's statement "...I do not, have not and will not support terrorism in any form against innocent people."
It's the "against innocent people" part that bothers me. Who is innocent and who is not in the mind of a radical?
I'm not saying he is a radical, but it is just possible that based on that principle at some time in the future you or I might be seen as "guilty" of something and therefore not covered by this seeming imprimatur.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[lekikui]

Still have that text File archive around? If so, I'd be interested in having a look if you could lob it online somewhere.

It's both impossible and impractical to censor information. Those who wish to get it, always will, and those who wish not to, can always avoid it. Forcing information and discussion underground simply has the undesirable effect of making it harder to have a reasoned discussion, beyond "OMG Ebil!". Let it come out into the light, and then discuss it in a sensible fashion, and there won't be any major problems.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[kyz]

You're kidding, right? There were a whole string of bombings committed by Suffragettes in the 1910s, particularly by the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[TheWizardOfCheese]

Certainly, in the case of the American revolution, it was an open war.

So what? Islamic terrorists haven't exactly made a secret of their war on America, Israel, and western countries generally.

It was, if I may use the two terms in the same sentence, a somewhat honorable war in this: the US (not exactly the "US" at that time) declared that they were independent of Britain [...]

That is a wishful sanitization of history. Roughly as many Americans were opposed to independence as in favor, so that it was not America that declared independence but one political faction. History has vindicated the revolutionaries, but as always it was necessary to break a few eggs to make the omelete. America went on to host a terrorist organization, the Fenian Brotherhood, and benignly tolerated its attacks on Canada (then a part of Britain) in ways not very different from the ways that Iran and Syria host and tolerate Islamic terrorists today.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

While it took 30 years for Britain to realise that they could undermine the whole terrorism nonsense by removing the underlying reasons. Oh, I hadn't heard yet that Ireland was reunified as a single, independent nation.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[stdarg]

You're right of course, but I don't know if your definition excludes war any better than mine. It's tough to nail down.

For instance, isn't the civilian population always adversely affected by war? So isn't threatening war, even "non-terrorist" war, basically a threat of the use of violence against civilians?

Ultimately any war has to be backed up by the threat of harm towards civilians, or nobody would ever quit fighting (what do they have to lose?).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course eliminating the bogeyman by addressing legitimate Arab grievances and addressing other issues constructively might not be in the US's best interests at the moment.

Unfortunately, you need popular agreement on both sides as to what grievances are legitimate. The US being in Iraq is a legitimate grievance, but other conflicts get fuzzy. The primary grievance which caused the September 11 attack was the presence of Americans in Saudi Arabia, but they were there with the blessing and support of the Saudi royal family. Afterwards, Osama bin Laden gave a speech in which he claimed India, Russia, and Spain for Islam. Ironically, the US invasion of Iraq provided a Middle East base to move US forces from Saudi Arabia to so the US actually did address that initial grievance.

See also Israel, which addressed all of the Arabs' legitimate grievances in 2000 only to have the offer thrown back in their face with a refusal to conduct any further negotiation and a war instead. Their opponents' grievances range from wanting all of the Jews dead (Hamas, Hezbollah) to only wanting most of the Jews dead and an Arab-controlled state formed in Israel's place (Fatah). There is not a lot that Israel can do in their case, although it would be nice if they decided to stop making things worse with some of their policies.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Das Modell]

No, only when I make comments that contradict some random leftist dogma of Slashdotters. Nobody has so far been able to point out an inaccuracy in my post.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dryeo]

I'd suggest that you educate yourself. At least 1/3 of the people in America (the 13 colonies that is) did not agree with the rebellion and were terrorized in various ways. One common example was tar and feathering, eg made to watch the tar heated up over a fire to maybe 160 degrees then have it poured over them and forced to roll in feathers. Sounds pretty terrorizing to me. Not to mention the nonphysical political acts done to them, you know, all men are equal unless black, or loyalist in which case they had no rights besides things like triple taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dryeo]

You're forgetting that perhaps a third of the American population did not agree to the revolt and these people were terrorized into leaving the country or keeping their political beliefs very quiet. Otherwise at the minimum they had their possessions stolen from them and were often beaten or tar and feathered, a punishment that must of been quite terrorizing and often the burns would kill.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[j_w_d]

It's hard for older people to take them not seriously. They've seen too many real terrorists and serious threats to give some kids messing around any slack.

As one of those older types, I call "baloney." The "threat" of getting hit by a car is far more serious than anything that has ever been posed by "terrorists" - other than the type usually called "the government, the IRS, etc." - especially the Islamic brand. "Suicide bombers" are a self-solving problem through evolutionary selection. In fact recent news suggests that they've already begun running out of the terminally stupid "angry young men" and are now attempting to use children and the other "distrust challenged" subsets of the population. Certainly it would be bad to run into a genuine terrorist, but the odds are against that in most parts of the world.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[meringuoid]

If only this were true. The Brits basically hollowed out the IRA from the inside by infesting it with double agents. The Provos military leadership pretty much collapsed once no-one could be trusted. It was a dirty, vicious and highly effective campaign.

True enough - the IRA was riddled with informers towards the end, and that crippled their operational effectiveness. But having achieved that winning position, how do you finish it? It's a problem straight from Sun Tzu - the defeated enemy with nowhere to go turns vicious. Send in the police and the army and round up the lot of 'em? It'd be a bloodbath, which the next generation would surely grow up to avenge.

Hence the solution: offer them an escape route. Amnesty for past crimes, release of prisoners, political devolution and real power for elected Sinn Fein leaders, in exchange for disarmament and a peace deal.

Overwhelming military force and clever intelligence operations are undoubtedly of great value in fighting a war against terrorists. But to end it, you need a political settlement.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[WilliamSChips]

I don't think YouTube counts as seeing them. Did he see them in person? No? It doesn't count.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

[I]f American citizens were randomly blowing up Islamic sites, would you support forcing the US to do something about it?

Sure. But, if Russia decide to invade America because of a few American citizens blowing up Islamic sites, would you stand by and let the Russians set up a new government, "capitalize" our natural resources, and all the rest? Or would you fight against your "liberators" and assert your own autonomy even if you disagreed with the people that blew up the Islamic sites?

Unfortunately, America has a history of meddling, so there's little reason for the people in the countries we're occupying to believe that America has their best interests at heart. Read your history and find out how the Shah in Iran came to power (and why it's a thorn in our side today). Here's an interesting piece that truly does "reverse the tables": http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan2.html

Frankly, I think there's a big double standard. It's one thing for a country to declare war and officially fight[...].

The double standard happens on both sides. You are right in your introductory paragraph that the U.S. did fight against the British. The part you are ignoring is the fact that the Americans were using "dishonorable" guerrilla tactics instead of fighting on open ground. Why? Because the British forces were superior in organization and training. The Americans, true to their nature, changed the rules of the fight and won. Now that the Americans are the powerful, well-organized and well-trained forces, they are whining that the enemy isn't fighting honorably. I believe the newly coined term is "enemy combatant".

You might find the ones that actually know what communism is, stands for, and does of a differing opinion than, say, Americans who really know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc.

Go find a group of African-Americans and tell them that they know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc. I think you will find that you have made a grave error in that assumption.

IMO, no matter how bad you think ANY US president was, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't particularly have wanted to be a citizen under Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, or Hussein.

Again, you show your ignorance of history. The history books are filled with brutal and merciless autocrats, particularly in the Middle Ages, but somehow most societies managed to survive. Yes, it is preferable to live with the most freedom possible, but in the lens of history this has been a recent phenomenon. Unfortunately, with the overreactions to enemies like the communists and terrorists that the grandparent post mentioned, we are slowly reverting back to old forms of autocracy, dynasties, brutal treatment of people, and a lack of freedom.

Plus, in most legal systems I am familiar with, you cannot be exonerated from a lesser crime by claiming, "At least I am not a mass murderer!"

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I seemed to read the thread of posts as implying the students had downloaded jihadist material and therefore they were jihadists, and all that entails.

Sorry if I mischaracterised your post.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[WilliamSChips]

they declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, You completely ignore that the Sons of Liberty at that point were constantly finding Loyalists and killing them by the method of tar and feather.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[WilliamSChips]

It ended in 1877.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

This was a typo, LOL !!! Big one.

After and overworked day and after 2 glasses of wine you just do stuff like that. :)

TYPO TYPO TYPO ..... but hey at least I did not write NUCULAR :)

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

Well, I had to looked at the exact definition to be honest.
Considering that English is not my 1st language, even having a rather large vocabulary, I think I should not be extremely ashamed of that. Well, even living in Central America English is becoming my 1st language at last.

You always learn something...... or at least I try my best.

Cheers

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

LOL. Too much work, too much wine. Indeed.

Believe me, that after the Monarchy, 2 lost World Wars, 40 years of Soviet occupation, only too much wine can make you write such a huge TYPO bs. I got an extremely strong history education. BTW owning that book could have landed me in prison easily at those occupation times, so I never owed one then. Kind of a tougher censorship was in fashion back then.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Skrynesaver]

While the partition of Ireland is the reason for the existence on the IRA, the inequality of NI society was the reason the IRA were a credible force. If you have a situation where engineers can't get jobs in Short's or Harland & Wolf because of the community they are drawn from then you have competent terrorists rather than romantic history students.

If that community as a whole is pissed off then you have a network of safe houses and people willing to lie for you.

In short while addressing the demands of the civil rights movement (30 years on) didn't remove the ostensible reason for the IRA's existence, it did remove the reasons many members joined, (though there are a rump of hard core gangsters left whose actions need to be dissociated from a political context).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Carewolf]

Yes, I agree.

I used the analog as a way to show the insanity of declaring war on terrorism.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. I don't think you know what the term 'jihad' means. Why don't you go look it up. Besides, the word "infidel" does not appear in the Arabic Quran.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Das Modell]

Wrong. I don't think you know what the term 'jihad' means. Why don't you go look it up.

I know what it means.

Besides, the word "infidel" does not appear in the Arabic Quran.

Are you arguing pointless semantics or are you trying to claim that such a concept doesn't exist in Islam?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

HAHA ...

I actually had a BBS. Too lines (one 0-24, other 21-07) ... :) at that time it was considered "very cyber" to own an extra OS/2 to run .....

huhh what was the software that used PPL as executables ? Anyway ... that is where I started programming too ....

ahm /// PCBOARD !!! loved that whole thing, and had our own "underground" 30+ node mail system.

Good old times.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

Well, in Hungary we had some prehistoric system at the time, and many telephone people convinced me that it was just science fiction. Not sure if that was for my protection, their lack of knowledge, or if it was true. :) Anyway, I had success tap dialing on public systems (until they changed them to DTMF), so I could feel very 31331 making a local call for free :).

After they arrested some friends with "special phone cards", and some who were splicing into phone booths (one friend was literally on top of the booth with a handset and a cable with 2 needles to "tap in") I kinda stayed away from telephony and the whole subject, and ran my BBS quietly obeying the law as much as it was possible.

Information Wants...

[tshetter]

Information wants to be Free. You cant stop people from knowing. You cant stop people from teaching.

Re:Information Wants...

[Daengbo]

Mao did a pretty good job by killing and locking everyone up. If you kill everyone with the information, no one wants to free it.

Re:Information Wants...

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Is that a challenge?

Re:Information Wants...

[Anonymous Coward]

You cant stop people from knowing. You cant stop people from teaching.

Chairman Mao disagrees.

Re:Information Wants...

[Notquitecajun]

Can I have your credit card and bank account #'s, then?

Re:Information Wants...

[Zollui]

"Information wants to be Free"

What does this mean? Not all information should be in the public domain.

I have the solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just shoot them! That'd teach them to download in a democratic state!

YOU DON'T DO THAT!

duh!

[ILuvRamen]

Don't you think it's compeltely reasonable and possible that someone would download that sort of thing to see what terrorists think and what they're planning? I'm not saying they did that necessarily but someone could so that's a stupid law.

Re:duh!

[Kinky Bass Junk]

That's the government's job.

HA HA

[Anonymous Coward]

Jihad sucks!

What a sec...

Better solution

[physicsphairy]

If you don't want your students to read something, have one of their professors assign it as homework and mention that there will be no grade or quiz.

Better yet, say there *will* be a quiz and then symlink "Jihadist Pamphlet Cliffnotes" to "Partial Differential Equations Vol. I, II, and III" in the google results.

Incendiary Device

[the_other_one]

I read instructions on how to operate an incendiary device.
I hope they don't arrest me for potentially committing future arson.
I believe the instructions said "close cover strike match".

Re:Incendiary Device

[JazzyMusicMan]

Your post reminds me of Minority Report...if this case turns out to be a rarity in our post-9/11 world, I wouldn't doubt that you could be punished for crimes they think you will commit.

Re:Incendiary Device

[anagama]

Now I wish I hadn't posted -- I would have used my mod points to correct the unfair "offtopic" mod. The question in my mind would be: insightful or funny.

Re:Incendiary Device

[DavidD_CA]

Oh great, thanks. Now everyone that's read your comment has committed...

BRB, door.

Re:Incendiary Device

[commodoresloat]

I read instructions on how to operate an incendiary device. You mean like the "Reply to this" link on slashdot?

Re:Incendiary Device

[lysse]

As in "this looks an awful lot like a cover strike"?

Student or not...

[Etherwalk]

If I go to a white supremacist web site, that doesn't necessarily mean I endorse their views. Even if I download their materials it doesn't--maybe I just find it disgusting and want to show it to someone who won't believe it's as bad as it is. Maybe I want to study it and figure out something about the psychology of the people involved. The same thing applies to terrorism, and... well, pretty much anything a student reads, or any person reads. *Reading* should not be a crime, with the possible exception of some classified/secret documents... whose classification is beyond the scope of this paragraph. =)

Re:Student or not...

[Romwell]

Just wanted to let you know that you used Proof by Outside the scope. I could have proven you wrong using Proof by Promiscuity, but I want to keep my geek license.

Re:Student or not...

[lionheart1327]

Exactly. I'm Jewish and I've gone to sites to read Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries.
That doesn't make me a white-supremacist, just someone who thinks its important to understand your enemies.

Re:Student or not...

[ill stew dottied ewe]

All right, you forced me to do it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Student or not...

[MightyYar]

That's the exact rationale I used to download the Paris Hilton sex tapes.

Re:Student or not...

[teh kurisu]

That's an argument some politicians in the UK either cannot or refuse to understand. I listened to an interview ages ago on BBC Radio 4, can't remember who was being interviewed, but one person was putting forward the idea that we should try to understand why people feel the need to become suicide bombers (post 9/11 btw).

The other person (a Tory politician I think), argued against this by saying that these people were completely irrational, that they could not be understood because their activities were just so abhorrent (or something along those lines).

So obviously he was throwing the 'know your enemy' mantra right out the window, in an effort to avoid appearing to be justifying their actions. He failed to see the distinction between 'understanding' and 'justifying'.

Re:Student or not...

[McDutchie]

*Reading* should not be a crime,

Obligatory RMS link: The Right to Read. In many situations, reading is already a crime. Thank you for your attention. Carry on :)

Re:Student or not...

[Zebedeu]

whose classification is beyond the scope of this paragraph You wouldn't be a Masters/PhD student by any chance, would you?

Re:Student or not...

[rve]

Even if you read Mein Kampf AND agree with the content, that does not make you guilty of participating in the Holocaust.

If just reading jihadist writings could make you guilty of terrorism, then democracy and freedom of speech have effectively come to an end.

Luckily that isn't the case, and everything is ok!

Re:Student or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris Langham tried to use the same defence.

Re:Student or not...

[KDR_11k]

Or maybe he was just afraid of the answer, maybe he just wanted to make sure everyone just sees them as pure Hollywood-esque evildoers rather than people with their own reasons.

Re:Student or not...

[teh kurisu]

Indeed. When you're waging war, gaining support back home is much easier if you can dehumanise those that you wish to kill. It's not a new tactic, for example the Destroy This Mad Brute poster of WW1.

Re:Student or not...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Well, the theory behind that is the very production of the materials is as a result of harm being done to someone, so by posessing the materials you're, in some part, doing the harm. This works on the theory that possession of the materials is likely to induce you, or someone else, to do harm to another. The thought process behind this seems to be:

1. We hate terrorists
2. We need something to pin them with
3. Only terrorists would have 'terrorist materials'
4. Make 'terrorist materials' illegal

Whereas, for child porn:

1. We had paedos
2. Paedos make child porn
3. Make child porn illegal.

In the former, the belief is that the person intends to or wants to commit the crime, and this is evidence of it so we can get them before they blow anyone up; in the latter the belief is that the crime has already been committed and this is someone we can punish for it. It's not an exactly analagous situation.

Soon To Be Illegal In The USA Too..

[nexuspal]

""Though Saffran says he finds these First Amendment issues "dubious," in a letter to Internet executives he argues that no one has a constitutional right to use private property to facilitate terrorism.
"You have the right," he writes, "and ... the moral obligation to stop them from doing so.""

We have a "moral" obligation to stop our great discoveries in history from being propagated to the masses because some might use it incorrectly(note, this is not yelling fire in a packed theatre)? Please keep in mind, 4 grad students built the bomb (in design) to specifications that current atomic scientist said would actually chain react and detonate, using books that were publically available, but they're scared of information that might enable one to make dynamite? If someone is smart enough and motivated enought to make dynamite, they could do far, far, worse without explosives imo.

Re:Soon To Be Illegal In The USA Too..

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon to be illegal? Have we all forgotten José Padilla?

US citizen, charged with aiding terrorism, shipped off to Gitmo for three years with no trial, and finally sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Why?

Because he "provided material support to terrorism" - in other words, converted to Islam and visited Iraq.

Re:Soon To Be Illegal In The USA Too..

[Anonymous Coward]

"converted to Islam and visited Iraq."

He should get 40 years for being so fucking stupid.

Mark the parent up, it's right on the money

[mackermacker]

Students are rebellions, and although we are all curious well into life and most likely forever, we all have probably done things in college we would no longer consider with careers, family, children, etc. Something like this sets a scary president. For instance, I am no longer interested in googling search terms such as (at the time, it was yahoo):

- Bet Middler from behind
- Bet Middler Anal
- Bet Middler, Flute, #2 pencil
- Bet Middler, pot, cyanide
- Bet Middler, Beta, Used, spycam, whipcream
- Bet Middler, difference, satan (no search results)

Basically, it's just kids who are curious. I am curious how everyone in the world knows how to make bombs but me, yet I don't plan to do it anytime soon. I am also curious about this big black hole in those intertubes called 'goatse', yet I', old enough where I will not pursue further study.

Re:Mark the parent up, it's right on the money

[aproposofwhat]

I thought it was Bette Midler?

Thanks for bringing her to mind - I've now got the 'Phuck U Symphony' running through my head, TYVM ;P

Yeah, but that just means more totalitarian action

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect requests for terror websites to redirect to 2girls1cup in 3... 2...

Actually they were...

[matria]

This whole thing came up because one of the students left home to join the others; they were intending to go fight in some unspecified foreign country. The student's parents called the police to report him missing when he sneaked out. Investigating his disappearance uncovered the material. But then I read the article yesterday.

Re:Actually they were...

[pembo13]

Going to fight in a foreign country isn't a crime either... unless the UK has jurisdiction in said foreign country.

Re:Actually they were...

[sumdumass]

If your fighting ends up killing someone under the jurisdiction of the UK, it is illegal. At least that is the way it works in the US.

Somehow I doubt the UK would let one of their citizens or military members be murdered by another citizen and not care because it happened in some place they didn't control.

Excuses, excuses...

[Kenrod]

I'm very sad to see so many people here making excuses for these young men's jihadist tendencies. Equating the perps extremist religious motives with the Western notion of youthful experimentation or benign curiosity is insulting to everyone, even the jihadis.

These guys were caught because one of them wrote a "bye, I'm going to fight for Allah" note to his parents. He promised to engage in conventional warfare (as opposed to domestic terrorism). He quoted two passages from the Koran to support his position:

Surah al-baqarah 2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.

And:

Surah at-tawbah 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The letter is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_02_08_rajaletter1.pdf

I hope all of you defenders of freedom get that.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

These guys were caught because one of them wrote a "bye, I'm going to fight for Allah" note to his parents. He promised to engage in conventional warfare (as opposed to domestic terrorism).

Well, not to support religious nutters of any persuasion, but if he had written "I'm off to fight for Christ, but only in conventional warfare somewhere Christians are being oppressed and killed" would anybody even bat an eyelid? Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland?

Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[kent_eh]

Then arrest him for things that he stated (in writing) he was planning to do, not for what he had on his bookshelf.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[cheesebilly]

The date on that letter is 2006?

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nexuspal]

So, if you have a gun(or look up explosives, see my other post where telling how to make a gun is illegal in the usa), and "believe" in materials that say murder is acceptable for the ends that God has in mind, and state the same, you're guilty (means and conspiracy)? Doesn't this reflect the views of say, 30 PERCENT of the US population (that believe in God and will kill at his command, even if he or she hears it in the wild and it says kill their own son)?

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[sumdumass]

Yea, they would care. Especially is they were going to join a side that was hostile to the homeland (the UK).

And 60 years ago, they would have been prosecuted for going to Israel too.

Don't look at this as people going to "work or war" for god, look at it as people going to join the enemy side of a force at war with you.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[KeensMustard]

Well, not to support religious nutters of any persuasion, but if he had written "I'm off to fight for Christ, but only in conventional warfare somewhere Christians are being oppressed and killed" would anybody even bat an eyelid? Well, yes.
Christians aren't trying to militarily solve the issue of religious oppression. The only thing close is the Karin rebels that defend and resupply Karin villagers in Burma. Even then, the conflict is ethnic in nature, not religious. Oppression certainly happens on religious grounds (ie oppression by Islamic/Atheistic governments) but I've never heard of Christians taking up arms and flying to China to fight against the government.

Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland? Closer - still an ethnic dispute (since Israel proclaims itself to be a secular state, albeit apartheidist), but with strong religious tones.

Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better. Are you proposing to put yourself in a mental hospital? Because if what you really meant was "Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas that disagree with mine into a mental hospital until they get better" then there is philosophically no difference between your statement and the people you are criticising. I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have a view that differs from my own. Perhaps you should do the same.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Christians aren't trying to militarily solve the issue of religious oppression.

What about Darfur? I know lots of people like to label conflicts as "ethnic" in direct contrast to "religious" but I don't see how religion can be so easily separated out from enthnicity unless you mean the word to be synonymous with "racial". The same applies to your argument about Israel.

I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have a view that differs from my own.

Supporting freedom of religion is like supporting freedom of cholera. Religion is a menal illness and we as a species would be better off if it was treated as such.

It's not a human right - it's a human tragedy. And these idiots illustrate the point well. They appear to have wanted, or at least considered, throwing away their lives based on some mediaeval gibberish they were force fed as children; they've been mentally abused as kids - what bloody "right" is worth defending there?

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Don't look at this as people going to "work or war" for god, look at it as people going to join the enemy side of a force at war with you.

That force is at war with me only because of my government's actions. Radical Islam is the bastard offspring of decades of American policy in the Middle East to which my (UK) government has constantly cleved to in a pathetic attempt to remain a major player on the world stage (ie, by being the Big Boy's henchman). So it's hard to get too worked up about a bunch of bearded ladies who have been worked up by propaganda which, really, has quite a lot of truth to it.

Plus, I live in Northern Ireland and I've been blown up and I've had friends and relatives killed by actual terrorists and I know that locking people up on such minor issues is actually counter-productive in the long run; you're just making a hydra for yourself.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[CannonballHead]

Religion is a mental illness, it's not a human right but a human tragedy...

Basically, you're telling me that I have no human right to think any way except your way. What you're telling me, is that it's a tragedy if I believe something that you don't...

Somehow, I am disinclined to believe that your worldview is right or better than mine. Although, I have to give you credit for saying it in a postmodern world.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[Weezul]

Amen! He didn't just say he was joining the peace corps or such. He said he wanted to go kill people for Allah. His parents should get him mental help. No airline should let him fly again. etc.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Basically, you're telling me that I have no human right to think any way except your way.

You have the right to be ill. You have the right to refuse treatment. Noisily.

But believing that invisible beings are ordering your life and planning to punish you if you don't do what they want is not something I feel should be treated in the same was as feedom of assembly or speech.

I have to give you credit for saying it in a postmodern world.

Thank you.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[mapkinase]

"Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better." Like Soviets did with the dissidents. That was my time actually. Before my time there were jailed and before that just executed. Apparently Russia had some civilization meltdown, while your brilliant idea must be progressive.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not to support religious nutters of any persuasion, but if he had written "I'm off to fight for Christ, but only in conventional warfare somewhere Christians are being oppressed and killed" would anybody even bat an eyelid? Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland?

When you have to resort to such weak analogies, it is obvious you have no worthy argument.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Like Soviets did with the dissidents.

In what way was objecting to murder and torture by the state comparable to saying invisible things are watching us all the time and judging what we do according to ancient codes of practice for long dead tribespeople?

How can you even begin to suggest a parity between actual real suffering in the real world and fantasists raving about life after death and being rewarded with 72 virgins for blowing women and children up, or claiming that actual living people should be thrown off their land because of a 3000-year-old myth?

In what way is religious delusion a human right while many less harmful mental problems are routinely treated with medication?

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[bytesex]

There were many young western people joining 'the good fight' in Latin America, or joining terrorist groups in Europe in the seventies. Some of them survived and wrote books about it. Even today this happens: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/09/dutch_girl_serves_with_colombi.php
For the record: I despise them all equally.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[kabocox]

Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better.

Um, they don't. That's really why this country was founded. To have "safe area" to dump those religious radicals that Britain/Europe didn't want at home. Have you seen how those early colonies where setup? They were all strict church states. It wasn't until they had to get along that this whole freedom of religion came around. Of course we are all religious crazies compared to Europe. This is where they exported their worst folks. Heck, I even believe those that spread atheism are religious crazies spreading what they belief/hold as the one true religion.

I think humanity needs to belief in and worship something. It's just who we are. I actually think the first socialist/communists/and fascists had the same spread their religion impulses and were just using them to spread the faith. Heck, we claim to do it as well with spreading republics/democracies.

I said a few days ago that we need junior high classes in addiction management. You can be addicted to anything. Apparently, it is very easy to get addicted to spreading a faith/moral code.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to retry the idea that Christians aren't the same bloody minded bastards every other religious fanatic is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Or is the fact they're African make them non-Christian or an exception?

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

I think I agree with almost everything in your post. Which is more than I did with my own original post!

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Then I assume that you know it isn't going to war for god. And God had nothing to do with why the government was pisses at them.. Despite that it is the same "god" in the examples before this.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[mapkinase]

"In what way was objecting to murder and torture by the state comparable to saying invisible things are watching us all the time and judging what we do according to ancient codes of practice for long dead tribespeople?" Both are verbal statements of freedom of expression + in the second case: freedom of speech.

We are not talking about content of speech. We are talking about your solution.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[KeensMustard]

What about Darfur? I know lots of people like to label conflicts as "ethnic" in direct contrast to "religious" but I don't see how religion can be so easily separated out from enthnicity unless you mean the word to be synonymous with "racial". But in the conflict in Darfur, there is a notable absence of an armed Christian militia comprisng Christians from Korea, Kenya, Tonga. Again, YOUR point was that no-one bats an eyelid when Christians rush to arms in religious wars in other places. But we have yet to eyeball an example from you, let alone have it a common occurrence.

The same applies to your argument about Israel. You should read what I said about Israel again. Again, it is common that in pursuing war for ethnic, economic, ideological or strategic reasons, secular authorities will emphasise religious differences to try and dehumanise the enemy. Examples include Iran/Iraq war, the most recent US/UK invasion of Iraq, Northern Ireland, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, military action against indigenous groups in Kalimantan and Aceh by government sponsored "muslim" militia.

I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have a view that differs from my own. Supporting freedom of religion is like supporting freedom of cholera. But again, my right to not follow your religion is guaranteed by International Convention, so I guess you are out of luck.

Religion is a menal illness and we as a species would be better off if it was treated as such. But again, what you really meant is "Religions other than my own [are] a menal illness and we as a species would be better off if it was treated as such.". And again: you claiming that other religions are an illness/wrong has pretty much the same effect on the rest of us as screaming "Allah Akbah!" or wearing a suit and approaching people in the street to offer them the Book of Mormon. You are just repeating oft heard dogma and expecting it to be self explanatory and undeniable by the unbeliever.

It's not a human right - it's a human tragedy. And these idiots illustrate the point well. In which case, so do you. Your doctrine is inseparable from theirs.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[KeensMustard]

I'm well aware of the LRA and their atrocities - let me put this to you. Can you demonstrate how the actions of the LRA conform to Christian doctrine and practices? Because saying the word "Lord" makes them Christian is like saying Dodge City must be a car because it has the word Dodge in the name.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Then I assume that you know it isn't going to war for god. And God had nothing to do with why the government was pisses at them..

I was suggesting that the government counts some "fighting for god" as acceptable, not that some "fighting for god" is in reality a reasonable thing to do.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Both are verbal statements of freedom of expression + in the second case: freedom of speech.

The first is a moral position, the second is raving caused by mental illness. As I said, you have the right to refuse treatment, but don't give me that "religion is a human right" shit. We erradicated smallpox; we should try to do the same with religion, not give it super-double-special inalienable right status.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Again, it is common that in pursuing war for ethnic, economic, ideological or strategic reasons, secular authorities will emphasise religious differences to try and dehumanise the enemy. Examples include Iran/Iraq war, the most recent US/UK invasion of Iraq, Northern Ireland, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, military action against indigenous groups in Kalimantan and Aceh by government sponsored "muslim" militia.

You are trying to evade the reality for the majority by pointing out the cynicism of the minority. I have some experience in Northern Ireland and I can tell you that without religion as a recruitment device on both sides there would have been no Troubles. It is true to say that the driving forces for he leadership/intelligentsia were much more complex, but the raw fuel that the foot-soldiers and their baggage trains responded to, and believe, is religion. It is at the heart of the ethnic clash.

But again, what you really meant is "Religions other than my own [are] a menal illness and we as a species would be better off if it was treated as such.".

No, I don't. I mean all religions. Any belief system based on dogma is bad, but religious systems where that dogma is harnessed to an organisational structure is basically the greatest affliction we as a species suffer from.

Simply telling someone who claims invisible creatures control our destiny that they should get help is not a religion.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[sumdumass]

Well, even if the government did count some "Fighting For God" as good, the point is still that they were going to fight against the country. That seems to be the important part, not who or why they are fighting for, even if the country was fighting for god at that time. The key differences would be fighting for or against the country that are important. The government could be fighting for evil with them going to fight for good and they would still just as pissed at them. Mixing God into this (despite them being the same god) only muddies that.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[WilliamSChips]

"I'm off to fight for that guy atheists worship*, but only in conventional warfare somewhere atheists are being oppressed and killed"?

*Richard P. Feynman

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[mapkinase]

"e erradicated smallpox; we should try to do the same with religion," That was exactly I was referring to in my original reply - your bolshevism. Now that you have a diagnosis from an expert, go away and don't bother me no more.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

That was exactly I was referring to in my original reply - your bolshevism.

You: "My car tells me what to do. And if I don't do it, it says that I will have to work in the Ford factory forever after I die."

Me: "You need to get help for that."

You: "Bolshevist!"

I mean, at least I can see your bloody car!

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[mr100percent]

"Christians aren't trying to militarily solve the issue of religious oppression."

The Lord's Resistance Army would disagree with you...as would people like Timothy McVeigh and arguably Seung-Hui Cho.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[KeensMustard]

The Lord's Resistance Army would disagree with you...as would people like Timothy McVeigh and arguably Seung-Hui Cho. Maybe they would. So what?

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[DavidShor]

"But in the conflict in Darfur, there is a notable absence of an armed Christian militia comprisng Christians from Korea, Kenya, Tonga. Again, YOUR point was that no-one bats an eyelid when Christians rush to arms in religious wars in other places. But we have yet to eyeball an example from you, let alone have it a common occurrence."

Look at Nigeria, Christian militia's kill Muslims there all the time.

I confess

[Tablizer]

I smashed into a building in Flight Simulator(tm). Please, go easy on the water-boarding, I'm allergic to water.

Shoot Them Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait for them to kill someone?

Frosted Butts

[TurinPT]

Bottle Bomb

Ingredients:

* 20 oz soda bottle (empty and dry on the inside)
* black powder (the more fine the better)
* steady burning long wick (at least 15 seconds delay) Instructions:

o Poke a small hole in the cap of the soda bottle.
o Pour a small amount of black powder into the bottle (just enough to cover the bottom with a thin layer, but totally covered, no empty spots on the bottom).
o Insert wick into the cap about halfway and put a bend in the wick.
Note: Be careful not to break the wick or it will shorten it causing possibly disastrous results.
o Screw the cap on the bottle tightly and set somewhere so that it is standing up.
o Light the fuse and get back about 30 feet. Watch the bottle to light up orange. The second after this happens the bottle blows up.

How it works:
The fuse drops onto the layer of black powder in the bottom of the bottle after it burns through the hole. The wick ignites the powder causing it to burn. This builds up pressure inside the bottle causing it to explode.
I have seen these fly up to 25 feet. You can try experimenting with different size bottles or, try a glass bottle with a metal cap if you have steel balls!!! Note- I'm not sure it has enough pressure to blow a glass bottle apart. It may just act like a rocket engine and flare.


There. Now were all criminals.

Re:Frosted Butts

[dr.g]

For the improvement of mankind, please sub the following in those instructions:

Bottle Bomb

Ingredients:

* 20 oz soda bottle (empty and dry on the inside)
* black powder (the more fine the better)
* steady burning short wick (no more than 2 seconds delay)

Thank yew.

Re:Frosted Butts

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you do that?
Bush just vetoed the bill that would punish torture... arrehn, sorry, harsh interrogations. So, now, torture... arrehn, sorry again, harsh interrogations are not a crime, and as Bush said they are even totally lawful.

The US Senate just approved a bill that protects all the Phone Cos. and ISPs that steal our private info, arrehn, sorry once more, cooperate with the law enforcement agencies, on spying on American citizens lives without need of a search warrant, ohmyGawd, sorry, I must've said, on intercept enemy communications that can threat the well being of American people.

My cavities are still hurting from my last cavity search, and now we are all down to DEEP cavities searching thanks to your bottle bomb!

Re:Frosted Butts

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

Re:Frosted Butts

[Nimey]

You can accomplish about the same with some dry ice and water in a 2-liter soda bottle. Don't use too much dry ice or it won't go off.

Re:Frosted Butts

[karlandtanya]

That's sorta complicated. Why not just use dry ice or baking soda & vinegar? Saves a trip to Wal-Mart (do they still sell pyrodex? Mine dropped their FFL this year.). Liquid nitrogen is nice, too if you're working in a shop where you can get it.

Re:Frosted Butts

[Bender0x7D1]

For the love of $DEITY - do not use a glass bottle. If you get hit with glass shrapnel it won't show up on x-rays when you go to the hospital.

Let's see ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Possession of images of people who have been killed doesn't get you punished for being a murderer. Check.
Possession of pamphlets of jihadist material doesn't get you punished for being a terrorist. Check.
Possession of images of nude children does get you punished for being a pedophile. Um ... check?

While not endorsing anything, I'd just like to point out that some bogeymen are bigger than the others, and it feels kind of relieving that even after all the fearmongering the 'terrorist' one is still not the champion when it comes to trumping rationality.

Re:Let's see ...

[Vampyre_Dark]

I think all the blame belongs to the students, especially if this was done in a dorm. If I was in a dorm facility and caught anyone looking at that type of stuff, I'd round up everyone and you'd be lynched outside within 15 minutes. I don't care what the reasons were, just don't do it. Who wants to live next to 5 people who are looking into Jihad stuff? You can give them the benefit of the doubt that they are just looking into it for academic interests, but you're taking a 50/50 chance that they are going to blow everyone up.

There are some things you just don't do.

You don't walk into a bank or other such buildings wearing a ski mask. Doesn't matter what your intentions were.

Re:Let's see ...

[loimprevisto]

Or you could just... talk to them?

If they're your neighbors in a dorm, simply say hello and ask them what they're looking at. It doesn't take much talent to read someone in a situation like this, if they wave you over and show you the arabic page they're researching for their anthropology class then there's no harm done. If they become defensive and guarded- maybe there's an issue, or maybe they just don't like brash and suspicious people interrupting them.

If they're strangers, the same reles apply. A friendly smile and an introduction can take you a lot farther than a lynch mob in most social situations.

link please...

[_merlin]

Where can I get some background or read more about this?

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

The first statement is made online, just quote in google here. I found it while looking up a law I remember a while back that makes looking up bomb material in the US illegal, though I couldn't find actual articles on it (I still believe this is illegal according to fed law, but cannot find a source). The grad comment was discovered after reading a book on the history of the bomb in a library, talking about how difficult it is to make the models that allow the bomb to chain react. The grad students did it in around 4 years if I remember correctly. (design only, would need actual fissible material to make the real thing, like isotopes of plutonium/uranium).

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

OK, found relavent material...

"By contrast, 18 U.S.C. 231(a)(1) -- like the proposed Feinstein Amendment -- arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech. Section 231(a)(1) provides that: Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/bombmakinginfo.html#IVA "

link here May just be violation of 1st...

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

relevant, sorry my spelling is off ;-)

Re:link please...

[Eskarel]

Actually that law doesn't say what you say it does. Note knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed. It's not saying you can't teach someone how to make a bomb, it's not saying you can't learn to make a bomb. It's saying that it's not ok to teach someone who you know is going to use that bomb how to make a bomb.

The reason to know is a bit wishy washy, but it's probably just a catch all for situations where you have a guy who goes into a room full of plans to blow something up claiming he didn't know that's what they were going to do with the bomb.

Personally I think this law is probably pretty much unecessary, as IMO, knowingly providing someone the means to commit an illegal act in this fashion should be covered under "conspiracy to commit _______" offense tree.

It's not illegal to sell a man a gun, but if someone asks you to sell him a gun so he can murder his wife you're treading on dangerous ground if you do it, and five years and a fine is probably pretty lenient.

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

"or having reason to know", pretty much covers any public dissemination of the information, because any "reasonable" person would expect that, over the course of a million hits, at least one will be for a purpose that interferes with interstate commerce, or the other provisions of the statute... Violation of 1st still, and I know the law said what I thought it said, thanks though.

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

This is why an article prepared by the United States Department of Justice would include a sentence saying "arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech".

This is the sentence that sways the arguement in my favor, imo.

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

P.S., These laws are made by lawyers! So you have to know when they say "reason to know", they are alluding to the "reasonable person" which is the average person, and the average person knows that if enough people views their content, at least one of them will be viewing for unlawful purposes. This lead to the USDOJ comment on how said law may be in violation of the 1st, because the DOJ is seperate from congress, and knows the law as opposed to congress.

Re:link please...

[thomas.galvin]

...may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function... The Interstate Commerce Clause: the deus ex machina of federal legislation. We don't have the constitutional authority to do that? Interstate commerce!

What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the jihadist material? The Koran? Hadiths?

Like I'm going to read the article.

Re:What the?

[milsoRgen]

What was the jihadist material? The Koran? I know your being an ass, and this article is talking about the Brits. But we ain't that far from them, or vice versa. And for the record the copy of the Qur'an I read was from the Boise State School library (that'd be Idaho). Good read, not much different from any other mainstream religious text I've read. I recommend it to any other agnostic that seeks to have a broad and well informed discussion with there peers.

Re:What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend it to any other agnostic that seeks to have a broad and well informed discussion with there peers.

Except that when you try to have a broad and well informed discussion, people will laugh at you for spelling their incorrectly. Never mind downloading Jihadist material from the Intarwebs, uploading spelling and grammar mistakes to Slashdot is a bigger crime!

Re:What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are being an absolute moron, but you don't need to lie about the content in the Quran. Any reasonable comparison between the content of the Quran vs the Bible, taking into account that the Quran should be interpreted literally as the Word of God, will show that the Quran is fantastically overrepresented on any measure of paranoia, sectarianism and inhumane content. I consider myself agnostic and have read both.

Stop lying, stop being a moron, stop misrepresenting.

Re:What the?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the Bible is the book that advocates genocide. Or were the Hebrews *not* commanded to slaughter every man, woman and child in dozens of cities across what we now know as Israel and Palestine, simply because the inhabitants of said cities did not genuflect before the Hebrew God?

Islamofascists are the new Communists

[mi]

Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?"

No, "violent Islamist" is the new Communist. You were listing apples and chicken wings — Communism is an ideology/aim, terrorism is just a method — there were plenty of Communist terrorists too. Just as Communism in the 20th century, Islamism (not the faith, but the way of life and the society) is realizing, that it is losing to the Western civilization. It can not offer the followers neither the freedoms, nor the economic benefits offered by the competitors. It can not afford an open military conflict either. Terrorism is, pretty much, to fight for those, who must fight.

We will defeat them just as we defeated the "Red Army Faction", the "Shining Path" (Sendero Luminoso) and other Communist terrorists. It will take time — FARC is still alive and kicking, for example, but we'll get there...

America was founded by "terrorists."

Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word — it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[riggah]

My point is about the way the word is used. The word "communist" was used to induce fear and justify a war economy just the way the word "terrorist" is being used now to justify a war machine and domestic surveillance.

History is written by the victorious; I'm sure similar words were used to describe the founding fathers as they threw tea into a harbor. You're absolutely correct in your definition of both words, but I was simply stating that "terrorist" is the new catch-word that has America rolling over and giving away its civil liberties in the the name of security.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[sumdumass]

I don't know if it was the word as much as it was historical actions of political entities who claimed to have been communists. Even if we forget all about germany for the sake of godwin's law, we have Russia rolling in to some countries and pretty much making the same posturing threats as what started WW2. Then when you take all forms of democracy out of the picture and watch Stalin's death machine, look to Vietnam and the subsequent killing fields there, North Korea wanting to invade south korea, and all, there was quite a bit to be scared of even knowing that the forms of communism wasn't true communism.

I mean claiming it is a word without meaning is sort of like saying Fuck or bastard are arbitrary words that people all the sudden decided was bad to say on day. There is a history amongst it that gave the bad, scary, and evil stigma to it.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[riggah]

I don't believe I claimed it was a word without meaning. I know I was scared as hell as a child when I hid under a desk during air raid drills in elementary school because "the communists were going to drop bombs on us." The analogy was simply that while the words may have legitimate meaning (and a justifiable cause for concern), they also give our own extremists fodder to use for things like the Patriot Act and foreign occupations without much opposition from the general public. That is the goal of those catch-words as propaganda. The populace hands over its civil liberties because anyone could be a terrorist; a populace in fear is an easily controllable one. I'm not saying that Terrorism isn't a problem, nor am I saying that Radical Islam (capitalized for a reason) isn't a problem, nor am I saying that brutal, totalitarian regimes under the flag of Communism weren't (and aren't) a problem.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[aproposofwhat]

Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word -- it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...

But (with a special nod to your sig) Israel's founders did do that - see Deir Yassin for a shining example.

Nowadays, people seem to forget about the massacres and the bombing of the King David hotel, but at the time the Zionist gangs were routinely (and correctly) referred to as 'terrorist'.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[EasyTarget]

If you think that the british troops/sailors were not civilians, you need to look up the words 'conscript' and 'press-gang'. Please use your freedom to investigate the revisionist agenda about the war of independence you were indoctrinated with in school (you know.. the place where you are required to 'pledge allegiance'). Plenty of civilians who were loyal to his majesty got very thoroughly terrorised.

Basically the Right has only 'won' because it is the more violent and agressive side of politics. But in the end we'll all lose as it consumes the planet, then us, and finally itself.

Eventually there will be Murcdoc, Cheeney and the rest of them sitting in their 'arc' (ISS or the new Luxury South-Pole base) thinking they have 'won'. But then they'll find that one of them has been hoarding the remaining cans of beans and ammo. And eventually there will be one. Greed will have finally produced the ultimate Winner.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[chriseyre2000]

I can see the fnords.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[vic-traill]

Then when you take all forms of democracy out of the picture and watch Stalin's death machine, look to Vietnam and the subsequent killing fields there

Point of clarification - the 'killing fields' of popular culture nomenclature, at least in North America (as represented by the movie, I suppose) were in Cambodia. I've never heard the term used in reference to Vietnam. Which could of course just indicate that I don't know jack.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[mi]

If you think that the british troops/sailors were not civilians, you need to look up the words 'conscript' and 'press-gang'.

No, troops are not civilians — by definition.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[Hal_Porter]

McCarthy aside, isn't it a good thing that the US and its allies defeated the Communists? And wouldn't it be a good thing when the defeat the Islamists?

As far as I'm concerned people's right to privacy ends as soon as they start to use it to destroy the relatively free society that gave them that right. And historically, relatively free societies that have allowed their opponents free rein have tended to become a lot less free once those opponents take over.

Now I'm not suggesting that we should ship people off to Gitmo for questioning democracy, or force them to drink hemlock a la Socrates. But Islamists and their mirror image on the far right should be kept under surveillance. And I'm not averse to criminalizing them if they get involved in violence as this law attempts to do. And this case shows that at least in the UK the judiciary will interpret the spirit of the law, not just the text. So harmless people will not necessarily end up in prison for essentially expressing an interest in violent Islamic terrorism. Mind you these guys were not exactly harmless

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/internet_extremism_appeal_victory/

The original case was sparked when police were contacted by Raja's parents. The schoolboy had run away to Bradford to meet the other students, who he had met online, leaving a note to say he intended to fight abroad.

I think if people are against an open society - in the Karl Popper sense - then they essentially have that right. But once they start to use violence to further that belief that is treason and they should be locked up.

If you look at Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin, it seems like existing laws against incitement can put them in a situation where they are either neutralised politically or go to jail. By neutralised politically I mean that they stop talking about their ideas except to their relatives and close friends to avoid jail.

Now if you look at the article, the act is (or maybe has been interpreted by the judges to be) solely concerned with incitement

"We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury [in the original trial]...that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts. We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case."

So watching a video of some Chechen Islamist sawing off someone's head is not illegal. But using Islamist videos to incite other people to commit terrorist acts is.

Incitement, incidentally, is a good concept. Let's suppose that I say that I don't like Islam. That is ok and legal. But if I tell people to go out and harm Muslims that would be incitement and would be illegal. I think this is a good dividing line between constructive political discourse and extremist rabble rousing. And incitement has always been illegal. I think even in the US the First Amendment means that the Goverment can't impose prior restraint. But if you make a speech telling people to go out and attack some group, you can still be prosecuted after the fact for incitement. And actually this doesn't need to be enforced by the government, they could just let the group you incited violence against sue you. Which would probably happen in the US should a KKK like organisation encourage people to attack minorities.

And, by the way, Sinn Fein and its Loyalist mirror image parties were subject to loads of restrictions like this (and admittedly some very silly ones with loopholes) and eventually they turned into normal political parties or disappeared. So this sort of pruning of the fringes of the political spectrum can work. I think it is very important that both edges be pruned simultaneously though. There is some evidence that the racist far right recruit people based on a fear of islamism, and the islamists do the reverse. Certainly in the 1930's the Communists

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[mi]

But (with a special nod to your sig) Israel's founders did do that - see Deir Yassin for a shining example.

The village was destroyed by units created to defend to Jewish settlers from Arab terrorism... Before Israel was founded, the war between Arabs and Jews was ongoing for over a decade — and it was not started by the Jews. "Death to the Jewish dogs!" was already pronounced in 1929. More infamous is the 1947 (a year before Deir Yassin disaster) terrorist attack on the convoy carrying doctors, nurses, and lecturers on Mt. Scopus.

Nowadays, people seem to forget about the massacres and the bombing of the King David hotel

No, that bombing targeted British government. The hotel "was being used as the base for the Mandate Secretariat, the British military headquarters and a branch of the police Criminal Investigation Division." The explosive charges were planted only under the parts of the building, where British offices were located. The "terrorists" also tried to minimize the casualties: the explosion was scheduled for lunch-hour. Although civilians did perish, they were not the target — this was not a terrorist attack, no more so than Indian or Kenyan fight against the same Empire...

But yes, terrorism as a method was used widely in the past — aerial bombings of cities during WW2 were largely just that.

Which was my point — the enemy, the "new Communists", are the Islamofascists, regardless of the methods they use to fight us. That the most prominent Islamofascists organization today — the Al Qaeda — uses terrorism almost exclusively (blowing up a fellow Iraqi's funeral is both easier than killing American soldiers and causes much more mayhem) leads to a frequent confusion between the goals and methods. But it is still a just a confusion.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[Wheely]

The same process applies to the word "Freedom" too. It is the other side of the same coin.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[sm62704]

Almost. It's violence targeting civilians for political gain. BTW, did you see "The Patriot?" I wonder if any of the atrocities in that fine work of fiction happened? I can pretty much imagine they all did at various times, more than once during that war.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[sumdumass]

Where did you goto school? Or should I say when? I made it through the 70's and 80's in school with only brief mention of a "bombing drill". And I live 20-30 miles from an air force base that was on the list of most likely to be hit. It was also the same procedures we had for a tornado drill. We did get to take filed trips to fall out shelters but there was no fear. If you were in school earlier then this, then the very real Vietnam, Korean war, and so on were actively talked about subjects because, well, one of them was probably still going on.

But if your equating terrorism with the Russians invading who had attempted to put nuclear missiles in Cuba so they could hit us, the same Russia who had a show down with Kennedy, Who threatened the then president directly with a nuclear strike against us, who has come out on several occasions and claimed they were developing or have developed ways to counter out defenses, your an idiot. The fight against communism was so uniquely different, it didn't require any liberties to be given up. This was because they at least where proud enough of who they were to face their enemies in a way that didn't lead to attacks specifically on children and innocent civilians. With terrorism, it is you who is the target. It is you they want to blow up in some strange attempt to make the government to give up all their anger and cave in to their demands.

Equating the two because they both inspired whackjobs is like equating the threat of communism with pedophiles and registered sex offenders or drunk driving. it just doesn't make sense.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[sumdumass]

Yea, the killing fields were separate from Vietnam, it is the communism domino effect though. Cambodia wasn't communist until the early 70's after we pulled out of Vietnam which we say the killing fields shortly after (within a few years).

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Russia put their nuclear missiles in Cuba USA had put their own nuclear missiles in Turkey (which is very close to Russia, in case you dont know)

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[dryeo]

Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word -- it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...

Oh bullshit, you should study history. Here is one source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution) .
I personally think that making a civilian watch while you boil up some tar (about 160 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to give 1st degree burns and often kill) then applying it and making the person roll in feathers to be a terrorist act.
Also not giving people any rights, triple taxation, confiscating property etc not far from terrorism either.
Think about it, about 1/3 of America were loyalist and had to be driven out of the country (often from fear of terrorism) or terrorized into changing allegiance.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[WilliamSChips]

America's founders did not do that... They tarred and feathered Loyalists. How is that not terrorism?

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't look at signatures, but in this case it makes a large difference.

The parent post has link to this page: http://www.cs.umb.edu/~mi/th/occupation.html

And, without apparent irony, writes:
"Terrorism" is not just a dirty word -- it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians.

Taking a look at the image on the lower right corner of the page, one can see that all one has to do is claim that the enemies are hiding behind civilians (or baby carriages) in order to avoid accusations of targeting civilians.

P.S. Your anti-Arab biases are showing.

America's founders did not do that...

No, but they did engage in "dishonorable" guerrilla warfare instead of fighting in open fields as was the fashion of the time. You can be certain that the British were complaining that those backwards Americans were not fighting properly; that is, fighting in a way that the British would win. Instead the Americans fought on their own terms in a way that gave them a chance to win. Even though the Americans could offer little to the colonists of the time until they took ownership of the land away from the British.

Thereaer more parallels here than you might be comfortable contemplating.

In other news

[LaskoVortex]

Defendent Akbar Butt was glad some common sense saved his saved his rear and is glad to put the episode behind him. In recent weeks, Akbar Butt's life has hit rock bottom. But, to quote Akbar Butt, he "is glad the Justice System was not sitting on the job on this one". In comment, Akbar the Great said that Akbar Butt better watch his ass in the future.

Re:In other news

[sumdumass]

Well, Akbar is just lucky he went to trial in the UK and not in Afghanistan where you can be killed instead of just imprisoned for similar stuff.

Break the mirror, already!

[jdickey]

Yes, read and know what they say - NOT what those who would manipulate us would have us believe they say. The fact that you claim to have "studied" "Islamofascism" speaks eloquently to that basic fact. The more people who put their moral blinkers on and check their brains with the ADL (or the Home Office), the closer we will be to the (well-deserved) fall of our own "civilisation".

Jihadists Material

[tristian_was_here]

Whats the difference between watching a bunch of Asians kill people or American Soldiers. Maybe If I started watching American soldiers kill people I might become an "American Terrorist" right? Wrong because most people are morons and can see that the only difference is the nationality/side on which these people are on.

This will only make it worse

[damburger]

The police will whinge that they don't have the powers to get 'dangerous' individuals convicted, and so ask to be will be able to hold people longer, monitor people without warrants, etc...

And because our neo-fascist government wants to be seen as strong, they will do it all.

Re:This will only make it worse

[badfish99]

That's already happened. These people were only released because they were charged under the 2000 act; under the new 2006 act they would surely have been convicted for "encouragement of terrorism" or "disseminating terrorist publications" (7 years in prison) or even "preparation for terrorist acts" (life imprisonment).

Wha's in a name

[BeerCat]

In the UK (and the US as well), legal Acts generally refer to what they support:

Data Protection Act - protection of (personal) data

Freedom of Information Act - freedom of information

and so forth. The previous version of anti-terror legislation was called the Prevention of Terrorism Act, so why is it now the Terrorism Act?

I was on parole

[Anonymous Coward]

you insensitive clod!

Very goodnews for the people (Ironic)

[eiapoce]

In uk now you can freely cospire and organize islamic bombings. It is clear that this case has been a waste of precious time for the courts and the police. They can go back now to more productive asignments.

I am quite sure the people of england will be reliefed to know that no mercy ever will be given to their true enemies: pirates and file sharers.

The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[Kupfernigk]

During the Spanish Civil War, a number of young British men (and Americans) went to fight on the Republican side - the side which, if the war was happening now, would be opposed by the present US Administration. (For the politically illiterate, in the rest of the world Republican usually means left wing - I have often wondered how many of the well meaning Americans who gave money to the Irish Republican Army understood that.) There is a story of a Cambridge student who went to tell his tutor that he was going to Spain. The tutor thought about it for a couple of minutes, then went out and came back with a revolver, which he solemnly handed over. Would they have found themselves on a terrorism charge in 2006?

Nowadays, by most Europeans, those members of the International Brigade are regarded as heroes. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter usually depends on who eventually won whatever the war was. The fact that many members of the International Brigades fought because of an adherence to irrational beliefs like Communism, or because they had split up with their girlfriends, or because they wanted to rebel against their parents, gets lost in the simplifications of history.

Re:The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[meringuoid]

For the politically illiterate, in the rest of the world Republican usually means left wing - I have often wondered how many of the well meaning Americans who gave money to the Irish Republican Army understood that.

If you'll happily donate to right-wing terrorists but baulk at funding left-wing terrorists, how exactly are you 'well-meaning'?

Re:The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[mapkinase]

Well, in modern US several years ago: Ismail Royer, Masoud Ahmad Khan, Hammad Abdur-Raheem and Seifullah Chapman were sentenced for life, 85 years and 8 years for planning to fight for independence of Kashmir (the charges to join Taliban are bogus).

Re:The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[sincewhen]

Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks the modern parallel (but with the opposite outcome), in case you weren't aware of David Hick's story.

What is this stuff about?

[freaker_TuC]

Are you guys living in the same room ?

That will sure not improve your personal securit*doorbell rings got to go*

Bad summary.

[sim60]

They were not aquitted, they had their previous convictions quashed.

They were all originally found guilty, and sentenced to "up to" 3 years each, just for possessing a few dodgy pamphlets and recordings of "extremist sermons".

The appeals court (luckily a Court of Note in the UK, which means this does set a precedent) decided that in order to convict, the prosecution had to show intent to commit terrorist offences. The convictions were quashed because the jury was not told this, and the prosecution evidence would probably not have demonstrated it if they had been.

There's a whole bunch of these 'going equipped' style laws in the UK, where the courts presume to know why you were doing something that, without the intent to commit a crime in the future, would not be illegal.

Students can become suicide bombers too !

[Anonymous Coward]

Students can become anything, including suicide bombers.

Don't ever think that students are mere students.

So what do we learn from the article?

[fluch]

Never leave a note to your parents if you want to go fighting abroad... ...but I have to catch a plane to Afganistan ... see ya later, guys!

spot the difference

[v1980z]

afghan journalism student charged with downloading/reading about women's rights v. Students Downloading Jihadist Material. Apart from the *obvious* difference in sentences, the fear of prosecution - for doing no more than acquiring knowledge - is still there. Long live - some obscure interpretation of - democracy

so what's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having read this comment I still don't understand the difference between rebel and terrorist except the biased point of view.
Are Serbian fighters rebels or terrorists?
Are Chechen fighters rebels or terrorists?

My point here is that in a state of the war there is no difference, only the winners will define later who was a rebel and who was a terrorist.
So stop confusing yourself and others.

In the US..

[Anonymous Coward]

Those "rebels" did not use terror to achieve political aims.

Those rebels are doing it now!

You only have to look at USSR / Russie, to see that youre just intellectually masturbating. Why is the Russian government approved, when the revolution was far from terrorless, and the regimes afterwards was also far from without terror?

--------> His point

You

Fear Maturity

[Lazy Jones]

Maturity isn't the problem - even the most skeptical people would tend to say that society has matured since 2000 years ago. But as long as people fear death, they will be controlled by others who employ that fear for their agendas. It's this fear that drives educated people in the UK and elsewhere to support absurd legislation and absymal politicians like Blair.

Well played, mods!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The parent failed to complain about the potential censorship, so therefore, you guys censored his opinion! Crafty!

You are missing one point.

[jotaeleemeese]

Your explanation is very judicious, but you are giving a free pass to the US/UK and no credit to the radical Islamists.

The radical Islamists have a long and well documented list of grievances, some more valid than others. They didn't just started hating the West and what it stands for as you present it.

The hate against Western values came later, after a rationalization that the system followed in those countries harming Islamic countries (liberal democracy) must be the source of the problem. Colonialism and imperialism helped to create Islamic extremists, they did not grow in a vacuum of hate.

I think you were just trolled

[WilliamSChips]

Seriously. Only ESR and trolls actually use the term "Islamofascism" unironically. He then started talking about sexual stereotypes. As I said, only trolls use the term "Islamofascism" unironically.

They were not only reading.

[jotaeleemeese]

They were (are?) fully supportive of the ideas.

That didn't mean they were ready to act upon them themselves (one of them wrote somewhere that terrorism was not an effective means of struggle, that only regular combat would do).

I still agree that they must be released. We need no crimentals in 2008....

Nazis were Socialists all right

[jotaeleemeese]

But they are different from mainstream Socialists in many different ways. The main one is the "National" bit on their name. Socialist parties proper were international in scope and had complete disregard of borders (which is why Che Guevara, an Argentinian, became a government minister in Cuba, and fought guerrillas in Congo and Bolivia).

While mainstream Socialism was aiming for the internationalization of the movement, National Socialism in Germany was the xenophobic, ultra patriotic movement we all know it was.

But there was a strong Socialist component on it, like providing state jobs for unemployed people (which is how many of the Autobahns still in use today were built) and many other benefits for the working class.

This of course are very minor merits of an evil regime, but they really meant what it said on their name.

Re:Nazis were Socialists all right

[that this is not und]

Well, you'd have a point if what you speak of had been practiced in the socialist/communist movements. There was this thing called 'Proletarian Internationalism' but it was generally a lip-service thing at best, and at worst an excuse to send arms to insurgent forces within a country that it was hoped could be 'turned' to be part of the Communist system.

There were many persecutions of National Minorities in Russia, for instance. In the case of China, the repression and occupation of Tibet is an ugly instance of nationalism.

The 'National Question' was a topic often discussed in Stalinist circles. Then there is the big divide between Trotsky's 'continuing revolution' and Stalin's move to 'build socialism in one country.'

It goes far beyond the scope of most people's understanding of Communism.

Jihadism is not terrorism.

[jotaeleemeese]

Terrorism is the idiots way to do Jihad. There are many other ways.

The facts were that these guys were saying lots of angry words but where not part of any organization or plot.

Thinking is not a crime, saying out loud or in public what you think should not be necessarily one neither.

That is the case here, which is why they were set free, no matter how unsavory their convictions are.

They did not do that.

[jotaeleemeese]

So your attempted irony is pointless.

Quashed? Aquitted?

[jotaeleemeese]

They are free, they did not accept any wrongdoing.

You'll have to explain this better because I see little difference.

Re:Quashed? Aquitted?

[Anonymous Coward]

An acquittal is either a verdict of not guilty, or any terminated case with prejudiced. These people were originally convicted (the opposite of an acquittal), but the appeals court nullified their sentence. It's the same end result, but took place at different times of the process.

Re:Quashed? Aquitted?

[siesindallerscheisse]

"You'll have to explain this better because I see little difference."

It's the difference between wining because of the evidence vs. winning because of a procedural mistake.

Is it not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If any person who had downloaded material amounts of jihadist material over time was permanently banned from holding any government position, would you call it a mudslide?

If yes, do you have any comment to the fact that the government has banned all government employees from being members of the British National Party, and have formal written guidelines stating that they will not hire anyone who is?

Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

1. There are organised terrorist groups that seek to kill people. We know this because they have, and have been convicted by juries of it. The multiple bombs in London and Madrid were not "media frenzy" or "populist rhetoric".

You will naturally respond to this that "very few people are killed by terrorist, so the hunt for them is disproportionate". I would argue that this is either a highly misguided or a highly hypocritical view - because, if it was the case for example that private corporations trained death squads that killed only the very small number of 30-40 people a year on average, you would demand extreme action. The number of people killed is thus unimportant, and it is misguided or hypocritical to deny that.

2. You say that "terrorists are the new communists", and imply that there exists a withhunt against terrorists much like there existed for communists.

This is a clear and personal value statement where you assert a moral judgement of communism as a good thing, or at least not a very bad thing.

Why is that? Because there are already a range of groups in Europe that are hunted on national levels. Britain has banned BNP members from having any government position, and The Guardian infiltrated the party under a false identity and published personal member details with no consequences. Belgium has made illegal and disbanded the Vlaams Blok political party. Spain has banned the Batasuna party. Germany has not banned the National Democratic Party, but the entire government and judicial system attempted to do so - it only did not happen because it was proven that the party leadership was so strongly infiltrated by government agents that it was pratically impossible to find illegal material that could be proven not to have been written by an agent.

You do not mention these groups, even if the hunt for them is far in excess of any earlier hunt for communists. The only possible explanation is that you see these as "evil" and therefore "deserving of persecution", while both categories of what is typically seen as terrorists and communists are "non-evil" and "not deserving of persecution". To anyone seeing communists as evil, on the other hand, the persecution, banning and harassment of communists is as natural as what happens to a large number of parties in Europe today.

Bad Example

[peccary]

if someone asks you to sell him a gun so he can murder his wife That's not what this law is about. It's only about interfering with commerce. So unless his wife is a hooker (and it doesn't specify lawful commerce), this law would not apply to that behavior.

This law is all about protecting McDonald's and Starbucks from TEH AN4RKISTS!!

one-up

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had actually read a biography of Hitler you would have discovered Hitler wasn't a national socialist but rather a social nationalist.

Re:one-up

[Nimey]

s/social nationalist/dangerous wanker/

Same with Muslim and "Suicide bomber"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the best you can do?

No, but it's the simplest one you can rely on the person you're talking to to know about.

Same with clinics.

Re:Same with Muslim and "Suicide bomber"

[turgid]

"Ah, but," as a self-righteous I'm-a-Christian once told me, "They're not real Christians."

Re:Same with Muslim and "Suicide bomber"

[CannonballHead]

Which is true. Just like you'd say "Ah, they aren't real evolutionists" or "they aren't real scientists."

But the point was... there WAS a huge outcry against it. And it was pretty much stopped, interestingly enough.

(I always find it interesting that, when it comes down to it, many people think that they know what a "Christian" is better than "Christians," and that if anyone claims they are "Christian," then they are a good spokesman for all "Christians.")

Jihadist Prosecutors

[Doc Ruby]

I'm sure the prosecutors downloaded jihadist material to prosecute this case. Off with their heads!

King Arthur

[r_jensen11]

Wouldn't King Arthur qualify as Jihadist material (in the liberal sense?) I see very little difference between the Crusades and Jihads. And before you all get riled up, I'm Catholic, so I'm not hell-bent against christianity, christians, or religion in general.

Re:King Arthur

[meringuoid]

Wouldn't King Arthur qualify as Jihadist material (in the liberal sense?) I see very little difference between the Crusades and Jihads.

I don't recall any version of the Arthur legend that had him going off on the Crusades.

Oops

[finnw]

Sorry, I meant to mod you "Informative" not "Troll" & was careless with my trackpad, and with D2 it doesn't wait for confirmation. This comment should cancel it though.

Of course they were acquitted!

[glindsey]

It's not like they were downloading music or movies or anything. Why, I bet those jihadists didn't even remember to copyright their hate material! How do they expect to profit that way?

The Lords are not perfect

[jd]

Maggie is believed to have sold peerages just as much as Blair ever did, and certainly made as many (or more) political appointees in order to have a House of Lords that was more manipulable. Nonetheless, the basic concept is sound (two Houses maintained by independent methods and drawn from independent pools, to avoid degeneracy in any one pool poisoning the other) and has generally been better than systems in which the Houses are not much more than a single entity distinguished only by label.

Actually, there might be something to be said for dividing the peerage system and House of Lords into two distinct Houses, such that one represented the economically powerful - the latterday Barons - and the other represented the intellectually powerful - a "purist" meritocratic House.

Another thing I like is that Lords and the Royal Family have no vote in elections. At least, they're not supposed to have one. They pay taxes and have representation, but their representation is in the form of the second House, not in the makeup of the first. In the same way that the Commons aren't supposed to have influence over who is in the Lords, the Lords aren't supposed to have influence over who is in the Commons. Along those same lines, the Lords cannot "impeach" anyone in the House of Commons, or vice versa.

It's not a flawless system, it has evolved through thousands of years of experimentation and theorizing, but it has evolved into something very close to what is likely to be the best intermediate/compromise form of democratic Governance, as described by Plato.

Plato imagined a democracy might avoid degenerating into what is dictatorship by anything other than name by a two-fold approach. He rationalized that although democracy is a powerful tool, people are easily manipulated and can be swayed into folly by a good enough talker, that this was a fixable problem - you just needed good enough education and good enough dissemination of information - but that this would take time. You needed an imperfect, temporary workaround where you had a hybrid democracy/meritocracy, where (in principle) the flaws in each of these systems is negated - or at least held in check - by the strengths of the other. Once the population is strong enough and smart enough, then you don't need the workaround.

The English system is a thousand miles from Plato's idealized intermediate system, but if it works better than solutions even further away, we should learn what we can from it, not junk it as "old-fashioned".

Re:The Lords are not perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

You know fuck-all about history. Please don't ever again cite anything that happened more than 20 years ago.

Re:The Lords are not perfect

[jd]

You're not required to read my replies - if you don't like them, block them. I'm not required to take you the least bit seriously, which is just as well as I get paid for my knowledge of history by experts and professionals in history. Do you get paid for being a troll?

Really, just one

[j_w_d]

The Irish are a stubborn lot.

Re:Really, just one

[ddrichardson]

So are the Scots, unfortunately the Darien Scheme completely bankrupted the country.

In fact there have been large periods of independence and frequent resurgances, even as recently as the 70's (after oil was found) and in the 90's (after devolution). However it hasn't seen a large scale violent uprising, which is probably a result of the now heavily entwined military in the UK and the gradual erosion of our identity within the UK.

On topic however, Scotland still has it's own legal system based on jurisprudence and is less influenced by corporate interest and more by common sense than in England. How long it stays that way is another subject all together.

Re:Really, just one

[j_w_d]

Not being a UK citizen, could you define "devolution" please? As an anthropologist, I'm sure I'm not understanding your meaning. My own post was simply a bit of intended humour. My parents were COE and Catholic, you see, and consequently I lived the Ballad of the Orange and the Green.

Re:Really, just one

[ddrichardson]

Devolution's dictionary meaning is essentially the de-centralisation of government. What happened in Scotland in the 90's was more political manouvering than giving Scotland a voice. Scotland had far fewer seats in parliament than England, unsurprising given that Scotland has around 10% of the population of England. The north of England is in a similar situation to, with London having a large population and all government - it is also heavily out of touch with the opinion of the rest of the country.

At the time of Tony Blair's election, the Scottish National Party was gaining a lot of ground in Scotland on two platforms - a vote on independence and a proprortional representation system if we stayed in the union. Labour picked up on this and decided to offer a devolved Scottish government.

The Scottish parliament was re-opened and in an attempted show of reconciliation the Stone of Destiny was returned to Edinburgh. This has grown into an ongoing farce, with a new parliament building being built (even though the original is still there) at a ridiculous cost and the only real power is the ability to vary income tax by 1% of what Westminster sets as well as control over health, education, law and agriculture all of which were already administered differently from England.

There is an excellent history of the time of union written by an American author Arthur Herman.

Am I a Terrorist?

[fm6]

I own a copy of The Turner Diaries, a novel that envisions (and basically advocates) the future extinction of all Jews. I guess that makes me an anti-Jewish terrorist. But wait! I'm Jewish myself!

It's a good thing I don't live in the UK: the authorities would be so confused by me, they wouldn't know what to do.

Re:Just students who want to kill non-muslims

[pbhj]

From the Register article:

"The original case was sparked when police were contacted by Raja's parents. The schoolboy had run away to Bradford to meet the other students, who he had met online, leaving a note to say he intended to fight abroad."

The UK law requires that there is intent to use the material for terrorist activities. The plan apparently was for them to go to Pakistan to train and then to "fight" against the British. Just downloading the book and talking about it ... not a crime but pretty worrying.

Leaving a note for your parents and going off to meet the guys you've been planning to embark on your life of terrorism with ... seems like intent to me.

Now of course proving that in court is hard. But I don't think these guys are innocent, whether they technically committed a crime or not.

Malik [one of the accused] "... I do not, have not and will not support terrorism in any form against innocent people".

So if you believe them to be guilty, the belief of the hardline muslims for the whole of western society, or believe that killing apostates and dhimma is not terrorism but your Islamic duty in installing sharia ... well you fill in the blanks and tell me you think this sort of thing is OK.

---

Analogy: I have an argument with my neighbour because he drew a cartoon of my dad I didn't like ... I threaten to kill him. I download the anarchists cookbook and some info on firearms use. I then go and buy a gun and a few sacks of fertiliser. Finally I leave a note for my wife 'going in to hiding as police will be after me for murdering the neighbour'. Wife finds the note and reports me ... I'm picked up and taken for an interview before I commit any harm on my neighbour. Should the police send me home?

Get your history straight

[Tungbo]

While you have a valid point, the various historical errors tended to obscure it.

Germany put their communists in the death camp, so you can't blaim any of their actions on the communist. If fact, if not for the Communist Russia, it's not clear that the Allied would have won WWII.

It's certainly true that Russia seeked to dominate the countries around itself. But one should remember that in addition to the idea of spreading proletariat revolution, it also felt threatened from the West at the same time.

Stalin and Pol Pot certainly did heinous things. You should recall, though, that the "killing field" occured in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, the communist Vietnam was the only one who directly put an end to the Pol Pot regime.

So you see that not all bad things are done by Communists, and Communist government sometime do good things. But when one demonize an idea, then anything associated with it is considered bad. I think this was the orginal theme of the poster, that the labels "islamofascist" and "communist" are used in the same simplistic way to demonize others.

Re:Get your history straight

[sumdumass]

Germany put their communists in the death camp, so you can't blaim any of their actions on the communist. If fact, if not for the Communist Russia, it's not clear that the Allied would have won WWII.

Well, to be fair, I didn't place the blame on communists itself, I was placing it on government claiming to be communist(at least that was what I was trying to do). And yes, Russia had some good point but Stalin also had quite a few bad one.

It's certainly true that Russia seeked to dominate the countries around itself. But one should remember that in addition to the idea of spreading proletariat revolution, it also felt threatened from the West at the same time.

It may have but that doesn't negate the actions and the associated fear of communism. China was felling threatened by rebellion when it machine gunned down protesters. Their justification done little to negate the fear and impressions we got from that instance.

Stalin and Pol Pot certainly did heinous things. You should recall, though, that the "killing field" occured in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, the communist Vietnam was the only one who directly put an end to the Pol Pot regime.

Yes, I attempted to address this in another post that brought this up. By lumping them together, I was actually attempting to imply one happened then the other. But it is interesting that you brought up Vietnam saving them, Cause China put a stop to them putting a stop to it by invading in the north.

So you see that not all bad things are done by Communists, and Communist government sometime do good things. But when one demonize an idea, then anything associated with it is considered bad. I think this was the orginal theme of the poster, that the labels "islamofascist" and "communist" are used in the same simplistic way to demonize others.

Well as they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while. My point was simply that there was plenty of reason for communism to have a bad vibe associated with it. And as we have discovered, it isn't a simplistic demonization of someone or something. The threats and fears were very real. This isn't simply someone claiming someone else is a dweeb to stop people from likeing them, this is people taking on behaviors that have historically placed fear and such in our minds. Likening it to simplistic campaign of Black if faster then red on a sports car does no justice to it and that is what I think the op was attempting to do.