'Thought Crime' & Glorification of Terror laws.

[Crap Buddist]

From what I understand we can now be fingered by the arm o the law not only in this country but Uncle sam can lift anyone from the planet who are seen to aid terror and now Glorify Terror.

isnt this approaching Thought Crime levels of control ?

Weird, I suppose one needs to define glorification & what constitutes terror , also isn't the west also open to prosecution if an act sanctioned by them is found to be defined as "terror" or is there such a thing as "legal terror" .

look.

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble
Date: 14th century
1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> terror - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary



So the problem of this law can be seen above in the terror definition, I mean do western/all countries engage in it ? by its own definition ? not mine ...

So the law is or has to be just to further control people rather than to bring about "no acts of terror on the planet"

lol and doesn't the law itself fit into the bracket of a frightening aspect ? an appalling thing?

If both sides act in terror ,er, then what ? if the law is to be respected then no act of terror can(should?) be engaged in to uphold that law which prohibits it?

I recognise some might argue a country is bigger than a "group" dropping bombs on populations or governements to effect change, but they(any country) still fit into the bracket of engaging in terror?


Whats the answer ?

 

[Crap Buddist]

Whats the answer ?

Rapid world peace via the adjustment of the i-ching of the situation.

Strong in mind & weak in force = peaceful resolutions = civilised life.

Now its 180 at the moment why ?

 

[Atilla]

From what I understand we can now be fingered by the arm o the law not only in this country but Uncle sam can lift anyone from the planet who are seen to aid terror and now Glorify Terror.

isnt this approaching Thought Crime levels of control ?

Weird, I suppose one needs to define glorification & what constitutes terror , also isn't the west also open to prosecution if an act sanctioned by them is found to be defined as "terror" or is there such a thing as "legal terror" .

look.

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble
Date: 14th century
1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> terror - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary



So the problem of this law can be seen above in the terror definition, I mean do western/all countries engage in it ? by its own definition ? not mine ...

So the law is or has to be just to further control people rather than to bring about "no acts of terror on the planet"

lol and doesn't the law itself fit into the bracket of a frightening aspect ? an appalling thing?

If both sides act in terror ,er, then what ? if the law is to be respected then no act of terror can(should?) be engaged in to uphold that law which prohibits it?

I recognise some might argue a country is bigger than a "group" dropping bombs on populations or governements to effect change, but they(any country) still fit into the bracket of engaging in terror?


Whats the answer ?

They are terorising their own civilians, that's what they are doing.

Wait till the pension and health bills come to the senate and see if they spend the same amount (Cost of Iraq war=$900bn) as they do on terrorising innocent people around the world.


The US created Al-Qaida, controls it and wants it to continue. Not only did they introduce Al-Qaida into Iraq it was the Iraqis kicking them out. Way for Pentagon to ensure regular budget and continue it's existence. Just as they knocked off Kennedy for wanting to cut back their budget they will be turning on their presidents when their budget will be cut to size.

This is what all this extra homeland security is about so they can listen on everyone and further protect their forever shrinking budgets imo.

They'll even snitch on their own CIA agents who don't tow the line.

These White House / Pentagon idiots in power will soon turn on their own civilians.

In summary after the demise of the communism evil they have engineered and manufactured the war on terror to maintain this status quo.

 

[Trader333]

isnt this approaching Thought Crime levels of control ?

In my view we have long since been subject to "thought policing" Nowdays it is not allowed to say what you think or feel any more without huge repercussions. A classic example, take just 12 years ago and if you had dared make any comment on immigration in the UK you were branded a racist. The only reason that this has recently changed is that most immigration is now from white Europeans and so it has become OK to talk about it without being branded a racist any more.

Before anyone starts making out that I am a racist myself well I am not as I think that immigration is positive for economic growth (as has been seen by the largest immigrant nation on Earth the USA).

All I am doing is highlighting how "thought policing" is and has been very active for a long time.


Paul

 

[0007]

In my view we have long since been subject to "thought policing" Nowdays it is not allowed to say what you think or feel any more without huge repercussions. A classic example, take just 12 years ago and if you had dared make any comment on immigration in the UK you were branded a racist. The only reason that this has recently changed is that most immigration is now from white Europeans and so it has become OK to talk about it without being branded a racist any more.

Before anyone starts making out that I am a racist myself well I am not as I think that immigration is positive for economic growth (as has been seen by the largest immigrant nation on Earth the USA).

All I am doing is highlighting how "thought policing" is and has been very active for a long time.


Paul

The "Thought Police" are everywhere.

5 years ago I was arranging some special PC software for an employee with eyesight problems (basically, they could only see even large documents when placed a few inches away from their eyes and a PC screen was unreadable). The company concerned (government Agency - so no expense spared) called in the RNIB for specialist advice. When their advisor turned up I happened to mention that this person had an eyesight disability (I thought I was being polite and perfectly fair) upon which I received a severe verbal Boll***ing for inferring that this person was somehow inferior to the rest of us! I was told that my thinking was wrong and I had the wrong mindset. They were however, unable to explain just what i should have said. I gave up in disgust.

This is all part of modern life where you can't call a spade a spade and everybody kids themselves that things are other than what they are. We now have a credit crunch because most people won't admit that you can't get something for nothing. Ah well, that's life!

 

[grantx]

Atillla,

What a load of bollockks. Maybe you should have said "visually challenged", "optically deficient", "sensorially retrograde". Sod that. What's wrong with "blind as a bat" or "scens like a bag of whelks".

This is part-and-parcel of political correctness and the overbearing need by the nanny state to protect the delicate sensibilities of others. Everbody wants to be a victim these days.

If a medical, psychological (or any other) term is taken out of context and adopted by society as a term of abuse or derision, it then becomes suspect, eg spastic, mongol, loony, retard, camp, butch lesbian dyke, equities salesman. You'd have a problem describing someone with all those "qualities".

It's only going to get worse, I reckon. Maybe we could start a thread for euphemisms and politically correct figures of speech.

Grant.

 

[Atilla]

Atillla,

What a load of bollockks. Maybe you should have said "visually challenged", "optically deficient", "sensorially retrograde". Sod that. What's wrong with "blind as a bat" or "scens like a bag of whelks".

This is part-and-parcel of political correctness and the overbearing need by the nanny state to protect the delicate sensibilities of others. Everbody wants to be a victim these days.

If a medical, psychological (or any other) term is taken out of context and adopted by society as a term of abuse or derision, it then becomes suspect, eg spastic, mongol, loony, retard, camp, butch lesbian dyke, equities salesman. You'd have a problem describing someone with all those "qualities".

It's only going to get worse, I reckon. Maybe we could start a thread for euphemisms and politically correct figures of speech.

Grant.

Hi Grant,

I think you may be referring to 007s article. However, I concur with what 0007 has written and can see the funny side of your reaction.



My point was simply that:

The US are terorising their own civilians.

This in turn justifies their excessive expenditure on the need to protect it's citizens. The new anamy number 1=terrorists, is nothing but a manufactured war on terror to maintain this status quo.

The people with vested power will be quite happy to kill any US citizen who gets in their way whether they be a framed individual, a CIA agent who denies Africa sold nuclear materials to Iraq or a US President having the desire to cut back on Defence spending to redistribute to Health and Pensions.

 

[grantx]

Atillla,

My mistake. Over to you, 0007.

Paul,

It seems to me "racist" is used by those with whom one disagrees, and who see political advantage in using the label. If you go to your local, how often is there talk of the Muslims in this the UK, and how they are regarded. Is this "racist"? But this isn't some crack-pot fascist fringe organisation, it's the man in the street (or on the Clapham omnibus). But the politicians choose to ignore the general consensus.

You may remember the recent trial and conviction in Austria of the historian David Irving for "Denying the Holocaust". So some crank makes a claim like this and the authorities are concerned that despite the overwhelming evidence, Europe will experience a wholesale Damascene conversion into anti-Semitism. Do the authorities regard us as retards, incapable of rational thought and objectivity? Wankkers. I think they’re simply alleviating the guilt of their (Austria's) participation, seeking atonement for their sins.

Which is worse – right-wing crackpots or those who hold present day Germany, Austria and Japan responsible for the events of WWII?

Grant.

 

[Atilla]

Atillla,

My mistake. Over to you, 0007.

Paul,

It seems to me "racist" is used by those with whom one disagrees, and who see political advantage in using the label. If you go to your local, how often is there talk of the Muslims in this the UK, and how they are regarded. Is this "racist"? But this isn't some crack-pot fascist fringe organisation, it's the man in the street (or on the Clapham omnibus). But the politicians choose to ignore the general consensus.

You may remember the recent trial and conviction in Austria of the historian David Irving for "Denying the Holocaust". So some crank makes a claim like this and the authorities are concerned that despite the overwhelming evidence, Europe will experience a wholesale Damascene conversion into anti-Semitism. Do the authorities regard us as retards, incapable of rational thought and objectivity? Wankkers. I think they’re simply alleviating the guilt of their (Austria's) participation, seeking atonement for their sins.

Which is worse – right-wing crackpots or those who hold present day Germany, Austria and Japan responsible for the events of WWII?

Grant.

This is a very difficult question to answer Grant.

How do we achieve a balance? It's ok to allow free speech but there has to be some restraint. People who preach free speech to the demise of any other consideration are not being practical.

I think it is easy to rally people. Just look at promises made by politicians. People vote and then politicians once in power change.

If all the unemployed are told you don't have jobs, builders are told you can't earn a living because foreigners are doing your work charging silly prices and not paying any tax, or that there arn't any council homes left to house vulnerable people because the foreigners are living in them it would be very easy for politicians to tap in to these sentiments to get elected.

If anybody thinks this is unreal you only have to look about 60 years back and see Hitler or even Milosovich of the last 10-15 years.

Unemployed people on the streets are lazy thick nit wits if you ask me. (Forgive me for my outrageous bad PC).

If foreigners who can't even speak the language can come to this country and make it why can't our in grown citizens with all the help and assistance and support they are given? It's because they are good for nothing toe rags who are more interested in screwing the system and blaming everyone else but them selves.

We need some good common sense and ultimately balance in free speech.

 

[fibonelli]

"........Political correctness is first and foremost an attack on free speech, clear thinking and discussion. Political correctness is perpetrated by the left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to offend anyone (which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really nasty person and deserves to be ostracised by their peers. This peer pressure is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness................".

"...........So how did it all start? Political Correctness started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn't the wonderful idea of communism spreading? Read the full history and purpose here or watch a 22 minute documentary here.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

1. the creation of racism offences
2. continual change to create confusion
3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
5. huge immigration to destroy identity
6. the promotion of excessive drinking
7. emptying the churches
8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
9. dependency on the state or state benefits
10. control and dumbing down of media
11. encouraging the breakdown of the family........................."

Political correctness - the awful truth

 

[0007]

"........Political correctness is first and foremost an attack on free speech, clear thinking and discussion. Political correctness is perpetrated by the left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to offend anyone (which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really nasty person and deserves to be ostracised by their peers. This peer pressure is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness................".

"...........So how did it all start? Political Correctness started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn't the wonderful idea of communism spreading? Read the full history and purpose here or watch a 22 minute documentary here.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

1. the creation of racism offences
2. continual change to create confusion
3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
5. huge immigration to destroy identity
6. the promotion of excessive drinking
7. emptying the churches
8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
9. dependency on the state or state benefits
10. control and dumbing down of media
11. encouraging the breakdown of the family........................."

Political correctness - the awful truth

Looks like we've already accomplished nos 1-11.

 

[Atilla]

"........Political correctness is first and foremost an attack on free speech, clear thinking and discussion. Political correctness is perpetrated by the left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to offend anyone (which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really nasty person and deserves to be ostracised by their peers. This peer pressure is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness................".

"...........So how did it all start? Political Correctness started in a think tank (called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn't the wonderful idea of communism spreading? Read the full history and purpose here or watch a 22 minute documentary here.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

1. the creation of racism offences
2. continual change to create confusion
3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
5. huge immigration to destroy identity
6. the promotion of excessive drinking
7. emptying the churches
8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
9. dependency on the state or state benefits
10. control and dumbing down of media
11. encouraging the breakdown of the family........................."

Political correctness - the awful truth

So you are saying this all started in Germany in 1923 and everybody thought it's a great idea and jumped on board? That this is some great socialist leftist movement? No way.

Don't buy it...

Political Correctness is being civil to your fellow man.

It's about making your point in well constructed arguements.

I do agree it goes too far but it needs to be balanced. If left unchecked the media would give free air time to every Tom Dick and Harry to blurt out their rubbish dogma just to increase circulation.

People slag off Health and Safety but nobody slags of lawyers or the legal system for their stupid claims. If the law didn't bring these to court then H&S officials wouldn't brag so much about nothing.

Blatantly obvious it's been written by some far right Fascist propoganda machine having a go at communists.

That 1-11 is some made up list to fit the arguement. Bunch of Nazzis if you ask me.