• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anjem Choudary arrested for encouraging support for ISIS

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The BBC's Simon Jones, reporting from outside the court, said that when asked by the judge to give an indication of how he would be pleading Choudary said: "Cameron and the police are guilty." -bbc

What a stupid response. Typical Christian.
 
peonyu said:
He also doesnt have a job and encourages Muslims to not seek a job when in the UK. Its best to worship all day and leach off of the infidels and have huge families [to over run the place eventually and officially proclaim London as Londonistan].
Click to expand...

The book Londonistan by Melanie Phillips covers this exact behavior.

Choudary was arrested last year in a sweeping counter-terrorism raid by Scotland Yard. Then they let him go, when they should have sent him to Guantanamo Bay.
 
shira said:
It's illegal to advocate that others commit specific illegal acts. Joining ISIS is an illegal act. Providing support for a terrorist organization, such as ISIS, is an illegal act. So advocating that others join and/or provide support for ISIS is advocating specific illegal acts, and is itself illegal.
Click to expand...

I saw the issue improperly. I am very interested in the issue of free speech and whether there should be limits to it or not. Germany has much stricter laws regarding Nazism than we do in the US. My interest is in how much the contempt for the opinions of others vs. how much the threat of the insanity of others should weighed in the codification of law. This is an issue a lot like abortion, in my opinion, where competing interests need to be weighed, hence my comment that maybe liberals would be best at the task, that they might have less inclination to base their decisions just on feelings.

The actual arrest, it does seem,, is not a free speech issue at all.
 
Last edited:
Moonbeam said:
I saw the issue improperly. I am very interested in the issue of free speech and whether there should be limits to it or not. Germany has much stricter laws regarding Nazism than we do in the US. My interest is in how much the contempt for the opinions of others vs. how much the threat of the insanity of others should weighed in the codification of law. This is an issue a lot like abortion, in my opinion, where competing interests need to be weighed, hence my comment that maybe liberals would be best at the task, that they might have less inclination to base their decisions just on feelings.

The actual arrest, it does seem,, is not a free speech issue at all.
Click to expand...

Germany has proven it's populace has a genetic defect that allows for wholesale buy in of fascism and racial elitism. Real limits to that countries free speech is thus understandable and practical.

I don't see the U.S. as having a similar need or its citizens susceptible to similar violence inducing rhetoric ala nazi Germany. Our greater genetic diversity, youthful and rebellious history, and greater value of individual freedoms and thinking preclude any need for such draconian limits on free speech.

In short Germany has proven it can only handle single shot bolt action free speech and here in the U.S. we can handle the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and ACOG version. 🙂

Do you think limits on free speech should exist to limit the offending and hurting of feelings? Or that limits should exist to reduce the chances of free speech potentially inciting violence?

I think both are nowhere near good enough reasons to limit free speech and the slippery slope created by the first attempts at limiting free speech in order to keep potential offenses and hurt feelings from happening will prove to be an out of control monster in no time.

More and more people get this idea that they have a right to never be offended and that their rights have been trampled on when offense occurs.

That mentality and the demands by those possessing it give me great concern for its impact down the line.
 
Last edited:
Orignal Earl said:
MI6 monitors more American extremists then Islamic.
Everybody who follows MI6 on facebook knows this
Click to expand...

Referring to the 5 eyes bullshit where the member countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand) spy on each others civilians and electronic communications to sidestep domestic spying laws?

For example Britain's GHCQ is tasked by the U.S. to collect cell phone communications in the continental U.S. as U.S. law does not allow the CIA to do so.

Using an intelligence agencies Facebook page to conclude anything operations wise seems kinda silly however but I'd love to check out a link to what you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
davmat787 said:
Referring to the 5 eyes bullshit where the member countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand) spy on each others civilians and electronic communications to sidestep domestic spying laws?

For example Britain's GHCQ is tasked by the U.S. to collect cell phone communications in the continental U.S. as U.S. law does not allow the CIA to do so.

Using an intelligence agencies Facebook page to conclude anything operations wise seems kinda silly however but I'd love to check out a link to what you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Five Eyes is the only thing keeping you safe from American extremists
Follow and support Five Eyes on Facebook
 
Orignal Earl said:
Five Eyes is the only thing keeping you safe from American extremists


Follow and support Five Eyes on Facebook
Click to expand...



Bitch please!! 😉



One is something like 8 times more likely to die at the hands of law enforcement than a terrorist/extremist.



You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist



I picked up the statistic from a blog post called: “Fear of Terror Makes People Stupid,” which in turn cites the National Safety Council for this and lots of other numbers reflecting likelihoods of dying from various causes. So dispute the number(s) with them, if you care to.
Click to expand...



http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist
 
Last edited:
Orignal Earl said:
MI6 monitors more American extremists then Islamic.
Everybody who follows MI6 on facebook knows this
Click to expand...


Nebor claim: London is the center of Islamic terrorism and MI5 monitors more Islamic fundamentalists than MI6.

Some context, MI5 is homeland protection, MI6 is foreign intelligence. MI5 would not likely monitor many foreign people, as it is homeland protection. MI6 would not monitor many domestic people, as it is foreign intelligence.

Nebor made a claim without data, but its a logical deduction of how the agencies should work. It is also true that of the western nations more people have joined ISIS from the UK than any other country. (UK is not a single country).

So what relevance does your statement have? Do you have any proof if your claim other than following Facebook?
 
realibrad said:
So what relevance does your statement have? Do you have any proof if your claim other than following Facebook?
Click to expand...



Dude, Facebook is where all the cool intelligence agencies disseminate and publicly display there latest work and hard earned Intel.
 
realibrad said:
Nebor claim: London is the center of Islamic terrorism and MI5 monitors more Islamic fundamentalists than MI6.

Some context, MI5 is homeland protection, MI6 is foreign intelligence. MI5 would not likely monitor many foreign people, as it is homeland protection. MI6 would not monitor many domestic people, as it is foreign intelligence.

Nebor made a claim without data, but its a logical deduction of how the agencies should work. It is also true that of the western nations more people have joined ISIS from the UK than any other country. (UK is not a single country).

So what relevance does your statement have? Do you have any proof if your claim other than following Facebook?
Click to expand...

Ya...
My claim could very well be true eh, if you a little of that in with your statement it makes it more believable
I assumed the Facebook thing though would make you guys chuckle and see that
 
justoh said:
The BBC's Simon Jones, reporting from outside the court, said that when asked by the judge to give an indication of how he would be pleading Choudary said: "Cameron and the police are guilty." -bbc

What a stupid response. Typical Christian.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this post is 100% trolling brilliance, or 100% stupidity. Either way, I LOL'd
 
Orignal Earl said:
Ya...
My claim could very well be true eh, if you a little of that in with your statement it makes it more believable
I assumed the Facebook thing though would make you guys chuckle and see that
Click to expand...

I think you put up these words to convey something, I just cant figure out what that something is.

Do you mind saying your point in a different way, because I cannot wrap my head around it.
 
davmat787 said:
Germany has proven it's populace has a genetic defect that allows for wholesale buy in of fascism and racial elitism. Real limits to that countries free speech is thus understandable and practical.

I don't see the U.S. as having a similar need or its citizens susceptible to similar violence inducing rhetoric ala nazi Germany. Our greater genetic diversity, youthful and rebellious history, and greater value of individual freedoms and thinking preclude any need for such draconian limits on free speech.

In short Germany has proven it can only handle single shot bolt action free speech and here in the U.S. we can handle the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and ACOG version. 🙂

Do you think limits on free speech should exist to limit the offending and hurting of feelings? Or that limits should exist to reduce the chances of free speech potentially inciting violence?

I think both are nowhere near good enough reasons to limit free speech and the slippery slope created by the first attempts at limiting free speech in order to keep potential offenses and hurt feelings from happening will prove to be an out of control monster in no time.

More and more people get this idea that they have a right to never be offended and that their rights have been trampled on when offense occurs.

That mentality and the demands by those possessing it give me great concern for its impact down the line.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and I understand your fears. I think that because you are a conservative with the typical conservative fear of complexity you want to reduce that complexity into some simple black and white, to seek shelter from the difficult issues involved by a retreat into absolutism. I suggested earlier, that if there is any room away from such an absolute position, it should be left to liberals to decide where to draw, even perhaps a moving line, one that adapts to external realities.

Hopefully, your description of the Germans was intended as a farce. I believe that conservatives are as close to Nazis as we get in America, and we have also in my opinion, moved way over toward them compared to where we used to be. We have a congress chock full of emotional irrational twits.

If you honestly look at the masses of people you will see propagandized marching zombies. Free speech is the cause of this. We allow ourselves to be brain washed. You may be one of those people who is sure only Tide will get the skid marks out of your underwear. Nazi Germany was a propaganda machine and we have the same thing here. Free speech is the cure, but you see, speech isn't free. The media is owned by people whose interests are best served by conditioned minds. You are really afraid of something that is happening to you every day. Imagine if every ad that you see, every political commercial had to be followed by a rebuttal of some kind. Can you imagine something like that happening? The intention of free speech is to prevent people from propaganda and it has been taken over by propaganda machines.

You can't tell the difference between propaganda and truth so you want to allow both. Talk about a slippery slope. Money owns speech or haven't you noticed.
 
Nebor said:
London is literally the center of radical Islam. Imams live on government benefits and preach hatred for the west and advocate Jihad. This is a good first step in putting a stop to it.
Click to expand...

davmat787 said:
You appear to be disputing Nebors assertion regarding London, but the level of smartass you display isn't backed up with any intelligent reasoning as to why you think he is wrong, and instead uses attacks of different natures... For what purpose?

Anyway I know something on just this subject but id like to first hear your reasoning why you think Nebor is wrong. I feel like I would be jumping my turn given just how devoid your comment is of intelligent retort and void of any reasoning that challenges Nebor's position, in other words totally incomplete so I will wait for you to fix and finish.

Toodles! 😉
Click to expand...

I'll put it a different way- Nebor couldn't prove that assertion if his life depended on it. It's absurd.

Quite why he would make it led to speculation about CBD as motivation from Earl.
 
Moonbeam said:
You may be one of those people who is sure only Tide will get the skid marks out of your underwear.
Click to expand...

Not Tide, I'm a Chipotlaway guy myself.

You appear to be in favor of limitations to free speech. How would you codify what you think the new restrictions to free speech be?

Perhaps that would make your position easier to understand as we could test it against a broad set of examples that you would want to make illegal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top