"if you believe in freedom of expression and association at all, you must allow people to organize and say things you don't like"To quote Winston Churchill,"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."
The way I see it most of these organizations, and hosting company's are not in the USA, so how are you sure they have the right to free-speech? Second I feel free-speech ends when someones life, family or way of life is threatened.To quote KEBERA: "interesting you should say that it is not protected... what about the US/UK conspiracy to commit murder? (i.e. unjustifiable wars of invasion and looting) would you make government websites fair game for hacking too?". I have to say this I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but is it unjustifiable? Well if you consider getting rid of a president who's legacy is rape and murdering thousands of his own people unjustifiable then well I guess it is. These terrorist are out to destroy freedom no matter where it is, as we have seen in the last couple of weeks in Egypt, London etc.. This is not just a USA problem. I say hack away and destroy their communication systems. To that I say ....Oi Oi....
Kebera, we're talking about terrorists, not the Iraqi governments website before we invaded. I was against the war in Iraq also but support the US/UK taking a tougher stance on these extremists who randomly murder civillians that don't agree with them.
pfff, unbelievable, I can not believe there are people out there who actually do this. Talk about discrimination, just because you don't like what their "talking" about, you want it taken down...LMFAO...sad, very sad.The reason our government never went after these sites and shut them down is cuz it's unconstitutional, even if the ppl/site in question is in a different country. For a comparison to some of the logic that's being used here, it'd then be ok for any government to come after and hack machines of ppl who p2p, just cuz others don't agree with it. Is that ok?If these terrorist are dumb enough to put any actual info on their site then obviously their as dumb as a door knob, and what's there to be scared of then.
I can't believe that the irony of censoring people in the name of freedom and liberty is lost on so many of you. I too struggle with the whole censorship vs safety issue and acknowledge it's complexity. I think at least consistency in belief is a worthy goal which doesn't seem to be enjoyed by many of you. Doesn't the violence against Muslims in the US and other countries show that western media is also guilty of inciting violence? Should the media be taken down? Well maybe yes, but that's a separate issue.
Remember this quote that was bandied about after Sept. 11? "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."Of course, the counter to that viewpoint is "People who trade security for liberty deserve neither security or liberty." Two points of view on the opposite ends of the spectrum -- and at the heart of the matter a cancer that uses the freedoms the rule of law, be it the Constitution or the Magna Charta, affords. British security services and like-minded hackers are not censoring ideas that are controversial, like the way the Chinese government selectively "blocks" certain information. Those individuals are doing what they can to secure their own people from some nut who thinks everyone should worship the same god as they do in the manner that they do and is willing to kill anyone to make their point. I didn't vote for Bush, and I think the "terrorists hate us for our freedom" argument is fallacious. I think he's the worst president since Nixon (at least Nixon was savvy in the foreign policy department) and should be dragged through the streets of Washington and impeached. But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and sedition, treason and espionage are punishable offenses. The fact that these crazies have attacked US citizens means that not doing nothing -- not keeping vigilant and not using every tool available to ensure the security of the citizenry against attack -- is just as negligent as not responding to a conventional military attack. I'm sure MI5 and whoever else is involved with monitoring these sites keep them under observation before shutting them down -- it's like letting a crack house continue to operate after you know who the players are and after you've gotten as much information as you can from observation.Lots of things bother me about this "war on terrorism." Guantanamo Bay, extreme rendition and the Patriot Act. Am I naive enough to believe the government will only use their new found powers to combat bonafide terrorists? No -- in fact, I work in an industry that, for the most part, the government would rather whiter and die. But you'd also have be naive to believe that terrorists would stop at slamming planes into buildings to get their point across. The stakes are raised, and any terrorist -- even the Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolphs out there -- will have to try that much harder to get a headline. And I'll be honest, if someone has to literally put the screws on someone, I'd rather that happen to one of them than let 5,000 of mine die again. These people do not want to sit down and debate what's wrong with America. They want nothing short of blind vengeance exacted by terror, and like a rabid dog, the only solution is it put them down. Of course, there will always be those that say by using those measures, the country will never be the same and that the sort of price that sort of security exacts isn't worth it -- but tell that to someone who died in a terrorist attack.
crazy idea, but maybe those that support security over freedom should move to russia. i hear that policy works real good there."Sometimes the rights of individuals have to be sacrificed to the security of the whole of society, even though they should have a solid legal backing, and be accepted by the population."<a class="user" href="http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050802/41075836.html">http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050802/41075836.html</a>see, the commies think its cool! hey, whatever happened to that neat idea hitler had? you know, the one about turning the nations youth into trained spies and fodder for the military? i guess today's online youth can take up where that idea left off!who needs democracy? big brother knows best! - commies / americans?who needs democracy? allah knows best! - islamic terroristswhats the difference?
Did anyone see the show on Discovery Times tonight. Its amazing how they recruit. We need to starve them of their technology, put their message back into the 13th century where it belongs. Bring the people into the 21st but without the propaganda that these Islamic " clerics " post on their websites. I wish the a team were real, they make a good hit squad.
jammerdelrayAug 1, 2005
yee hah....go get em guys....
psyonideAug 1, 2005
"if you believe in freedom of expression and association at all, you must allow people to organize and say things you don't like"To quote Winston Churchill,"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage."
gronneAug 1, 2005
"conspiracy to commit murder is NOT protected"What it should've said.
wvstephensAug 1, 2005
The way I see it most of these organizations, and hosting company's are not in the USA, so how are you sure they have the right to free-speech? Second I feel free-speech ends when someones life, family or way of life is threatened.To quote KEBERA: "interesting you should say that it is not protected... what about the US/UK conspiracy to commit murder? (i.e. unjustifiable wars of invasion and looting) would you make government websites fair game for hacking too?". I have to say this I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but is it unjustifiable? Well if you consider getting rid of a president who's legacy is rape and murdering thousands of his own people unjustifiable then well I guess it is. These terrorist are out to destroy freedom no matter where it is, as we have seen in the last couple of weeks in Egypt, London etc.. This is not just a USA problem. I say hack away and destroy their communication systems. To that I say ....Oi Oi....
gronneAug 1, 2005
Kebera, we're talking about terrorists, not the Iraqi governments website before we invaded. I was against the war in Iraq also but support the US/UK taking a tougher stance on these extremists who randomly murder civillians that don't agree with them.
m4tt3rAug 1, 2005
pfff, unbelievable, I can not believe there are people out there who actually do this. Talk about discrimination, just because you don't like what their "talking" about, you want it taken down...LMFAO...sad, very sad.The reason our government never went after these sites and shut them down is cuz it's unconstitutional, even if the ppl/site in question is in a different country. For a comparison to some of the logic that's being used here, it'd then be ok for any government to come after and hack machines of ppl who p2p, just cuz others don't agree with it. Is that ok?If these terrorist are dumb enough to put any actual info on their site then obviously their as dumb as a door knob, and what's there to be scared of then.
barbwireAug 1, 2005
I can't believe that the irony of censoring people in the name of freedom and liberty is lost on so many of you. I too struggle with the whole censorship vs safety issue and acknowledge it's complexity. I think at least consistency in belief is a worthy goal which doesn't seem to be enjoyed by many of you. Doesn't the violence against Muslims in the US and other countries show that western media is also guilty of inciting violence? Should the media be taken down? Well maybe yes, but that's a separate issue.
whatwhomeAug 2, 2005
Remember this quote that was bandied about after Sept. 11? "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."Of course, the counter to that viewpoint is "People who trade security for liberty deserve neither security or liberty." Two points of view on the opposite ends of the spectrum -- and at the heart of the matter a cancer that uses the freedoms the rule of law, be it the Constitution or the Magna Charta, affords. British security services and like-minded hackers are not censoring ideas that are controversial, like the way the Chinese government selectively "blocks" certain information. Those individuals are doing what they can to secure their own people from some nut who thinks everyone should worship the same god as they do in the manner that they do and is willing to kill anyone to make their point. I didn't vote for Bush, and I think the "terrorists hate us for our freedom" argument is fallacious. I think he's the worst president since Nixon (at least Nixon was savvy in the foreign policy department) and should be dragged through the streets of Washington and impeached. But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and sedition, treason and espionage are punishable offenses. The fact that these crazies have attacked US citizens means that not doing nothing -- not keeping vigilant and not using every tool available to ensure the security of the citizenry against attack -- is just as negligent as not responding to a conventional military attack. I'm sure MI5 and whoever else is involved with monitoring these sites keep them under observation before shutting them down -- it's like letting a crack house continue to operate after you know who the players are and after you've gotten as much information as you can from observation.Lots of things bother me about this "war on terrorism." Guantanamo Bay, extreme rendition and the Patriot Act. Am I naive enough to believe the government will only use their new found powers to combat bonafide terrorists? No -- in fact, I work in an industry that, for the most part, the government would rather whiter and die. But you'd also have be naive to believe that terrorists would stop at slamming planes into buildings to get their point across. The stakes are raised, and any terrorist -- even the Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolphs out there -- will have to try that much harder to get a headline. And I'll be honest, if someone has to literally put the screws on someone, I'd rather that happen to one of them than let 5,000 of mine die again. These people do not want to sit down and debate what's wrong with America. They want nothing short of blind vengeance exacted by terror, and like a rabid dog, the only solution is it put them down. Of course, there will always be those that say by using those measures, the country will never be the same and that the sort of price that sort of security exacts isn't worth it -- but tell that to someone who died in a terrorist attack.
hecknjiveAug 2, 2005
crazy idea, but maybe those that support security over freedom should move to russia. i hear that policy works real good there."Sometimes the rights of individuals have to be sacrificed to the security of the whole of society, even though they should have a solid legal backing, and be accepted by the population."<a class="user" href="http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050802/41075836.html">http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050802/41075836.html</a>see, the commies think its cool! hey, whatever happened to that neat idea hitler had? you know, the one about turning the nations youth into trained spies and fodder for the military? i guess today's online youth can take up where that idea left off!who needs democracy? big brother knows best! - commies / americans?who needs democracy? allah knows best! - islamic terroristswhats the difference?
degan718Aug 9, 2005
Did anyone see the show on Discovery Times tonight. Its amazing how they recruit. We need to starve them of their technology, put their message back into the 13th century where it belongs. Bring the people into the 21st but without the propaganda that these Islamic " clerics " post on their websites. I wish the a team were real, they make a good hit squad.