I don't encourage that thing Google is doing, however, it's 2014 and it's only now the UK is doing something to go back from UKistan to the United Kingdom.
I'm from Algeria and the UK showed great hospitality to extremists calling for killing us from the foggy London streets. They allowed that in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. Easy being a democracy when what the extremists do isn't harming you.
It took the fhit to hit the san for them to wake up and do something about it.. How about freedom of speech now when terrorist actions are conducted on the UK soil?
We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot.
Free media means that the govt. has lost control of the conversation, they want it back. The key sentence in that piece is ' the government wanted more power to deal with material "that may not be illegal but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive".'
One man will decide what 60million people "want to see".
I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom.
_We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot._
An assassination attempt on a King few centuries ago, oh my...
I agree partly with you on the liberty side, that's why I said I don't like what Google is doing (i.e: The way they are doing things) and by extension, the way the UK is doing things..
The way the Government here is doing things: Watch whatever you want, but if we catch you, you're screwd.
_I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom._
PS: If anyone of you clicked on that link - which I really expect to be a 404-, I hope you're using TOR, VPN, SSH tunneling, God mode encryption and really make sure every packet your machine is sending and receiving is immaculate :)
PPS: Oh, and if you clicked, you're a bad person..
Actually if you know UK history you'd know that terrorism has been both religious (in the form of Protestant and Catholic conflicts), territorial (in the the form of sovereignty issues with places like Ireland and Scotland), as well as a variety of political intrigues and plots to balance out the power of the monarchy and the people.
Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge.
I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".
ok, I didn't get that from your original post but I understand the question.
My take on it is that the UK has tried a variety of reaction strategies to terrorist threats which have had varying levels of success. And the people have varying levels of trust in their government which then colors their interpretation of the actions a government might take and the reaction to their actions. In many ways I think the UK fears religious persecution more than most governments.
That makes sense. It's a really complex problem, it's really hard.
Here, there was a program for reconciliation. I mean, we've had it good for the last decade. It's really not the same anymore and there is peace, but the sequels are there.
And there are a whole bunch of new problems: What do you do with the children born in those terrorist families (because they lived wives and children in the mountains. These children were endoctrinated. What do you do with them).
The reconciliation program promised amnisty to terrorists who surrender. They were given money, etc, and immunity to start over.. But this brought other problems: When some of them don't have the decency to move away from where they started, and return to the very neighborhood they did some evil actions in. If you ever talk to them, you have big problems. This turned them into "business men" who are untouchable. And I let you imagine the frustration and resentment of the average citizen, especially the poor.
People will think "Heck, it pays to be a terrorist.. I should've killed some people to get those benefits, huh.."
There's also conflict with people in the military who sacrificed their lives and all, who gave an arm, a leg, an eye for the peace and who got nothing, to see these terrorists drive in beamers with immunity...
Not to mention that many who surrendered and who got benefits, money and situation... Eventually constitued back-up and provided supplies for the still-active ones. Some of them get busted, but you can easily make the case that "Once a terrorist, always a terrorist".
This gets contrasted by those who truly surrendered and repented. So you can't throw them all in one bin.
"That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK"
I hope that the one lesson that we as a country learned from the Troubles in Northern Ireland was that the strategy to deal with terrorists is actually to sit down and find out why they are so pissed off.
While I agree, in the case of NI it wasn't a mystery: an occupying force who enslaved the population [1], installed a settler population and terrorised the natives and ran an apartheid society using religion as a proxy for heritage, leaving in the 20C, an economic and politically disenfranchised majority.
Your QED is in reference to what exactly ? I didn't know there was something to prove, am I missing your point ?
I also miss the point of your "Nope". It's about what ?
Also, I wasn't in a country "full of religious fundamentalist nut cases". There were a few fundamentalist nut cases (compared to the millions of normal, regular citizens who want to live their lives normally) who brought chaos.
Even in the countries where there is the most violence, it would be naïve to assume that most people are like that. Most people want to live. Few nut cases want to blow themselves and go to Heaven or some nonsense like that, and unsurprisingly, it is these few the media are interested in showing.
> Censorship, brainwashing, media control and years of religious dogma turned them into cowardly bombers to start with.
Censorship turns people into suicide bombers? I think the fact that the rest of what you listed is actually transmitted over things like Youtube completely negates your point.
I don't encourage that thing Google is doing, however, it's 2014 and it's only now the UK is doing something to go back from UKistan to the United Kingdom.
I'm from Algeria and the UK showed great hospitality to extremists calling for killing us from the foggy London streets. They allowed that in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. Easy being a democracy when what the extremists do isn't harming you.
It took the fhit to hit the san for them to wake up and do something about it.. How about freedom of speech now when terrorist actions are conducted on the UK soil?