Good PR Hunting OR Terrorist?

[Scouse]

I'd say an "airy-fairy liberal" is precisely the person who, under the purposes of this argument, tries to distinguish between a nuclear-triggered weapon spreading radiation fallout and a conventional-triggered one doing the same, who gives a sh*t ?

Looks like I've missed a bit of this argument (re-reading now). But one thing that's really got my goat and I reckon goes some way to proving my point is the above statement.

In NO WAY does trying to get the facts right make me any more liberal than you. In fact I'd say it goes some way to validating my arguments.

Blindly mumping on about terrorist attackers without trying to keep as complete and accurate a grasp of the facts as is humanly possible is the folly here Cam. Glossing over the facts as you've done above amounts to spin - it makes the alleged planned attack sound a lot worse than it would have been if it had even gone off.

A dirty bomb would have spread radioactive material over a few blocks - hardly a nuke.

Fuck it - I could make one! Break into my missus' vet surgery, nick the radioactive material from the X-Ray machine (or some other equally dubious source) - make a pipe bomb and pack it full of the stuff, take a ride in a hot-air balloon and detonate it over Bradford somewhere..... I'd be fucking laughing.... (actually - it doesn't seem like such a bad idea - Bradford is a shithole!

Anyway - As I'm reading through the posts made it seems that you've only a loose grasp of the facts of this - which is quite unlike you as I normally tend to agree with you...... (with a few exceptions)

I've LOADS to say - but I've got work to do and I can't stay here all day

 

[Scouse]

Extreme liberal views

Jeesus Cam - he's hardly an extreme liberal. Yes - I'd say that he was a bit more liberal than I'd like - but you're the one coming off as an extremeist here....

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Originally posted by camazotz
Extreme liberal views always fall down when you start having to protect the rights of those who are comitted to abuse the rights of others, that is my case here.

This is the point, you're stating that he doesn't have the protection of the rights that we have, because of this. We don't know whether this is the case untill he has a trial!

Originally posted by camazotz
In the quote above you say "haven't done", this man has (allegedly) plotted to obtain radioactive material and detonate a device using it in a civilian centre, the mere plotting is a criminal act in itself.

I think you've said it all. He's alledgedly done all this. We can only find out if he has done this if he's tried.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
Jeesus Cam - he's hardly an extreme liberal. Yes - I'd say that he was a bit more liberal than I'd like - but you're the one coming off as an extremeist here....

Extreme realist maybe ?

I was not accusing anyone of being extreme, just showing how the debate goes when liberals do become extreme.

Incidently I think you belittle the effects of a dirty bomb in a densely populated area, it would almost certainly have more effect than the WTC attack could have ever hoped to achieve.

The only facts here are that a suspected terrorist has been arrested, the only argument is his reclassification from "US citizen" to "enemy combatant" and the possiblity the authorities may have done this to avoid him escaping under normal conditions of detention.

In the view he _is_ an enemy combatant, then what america has done is no more than what any other country has done, so I see no reason to beat them for it.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by ShockingAlberto
you're stating that he doesn't have the protection of the rights that we have, because of this.

No I am not, I am stating that there always come a stage where you are faced with alienating the rights of one side or another, whatever you do. In instances where an individual seeks to kill or harm a mass of others under your protection, then the state tends to err on the side of the majority victim.

Victims (or potential victims) have rights too.

 

[Scouse]

The only facts here are that a suspected terrorist has been arrested, the only argument is his reclassification from "US citizen" to "enemy combatant" and the possiblity the authorities may have done this to avoid him escaping under normal conditions of detention.

In the view he _is_ an enemy combatant, then what america has done is no more than what any other country has done, so I see no reason to beat them for it.

Cam - if all they're worried about is his ability to get parole at a parole hearing look at the case again. Are you seriously suggesting that an American judge would release a man accused of such an act on his own cognicence?

Not really eh?

The way I see it is this:

He's a terrorist. In an attempt to calm the hysterical American public (and believe me - they are hysterical over this (first and second-hand experience of that here)) they want to appear tough.

This has two effects for them:

1) Gun-toting idiots over there feel good about how hard and invincible their country is.

2) It's nice and convenient for them.... but that's really a side effect to number 1.

That's all there is to it.

I do firmly believe that the British government has behaved more responsibly than this in the past. The international community is up in arms because they (not just the public) see the Americans taking liberties because they're scared.

....ho-hum - there goes the afternoon of work

BTW - I voted terrorist

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by camazotz


Stop wrapping my words

Ironic.

I'll get off this merry go round since you're just repeating your replys over and over and thus I'm having to reply and explain the same thing over and over, although all this arguement is irrelevant

 

[*charlton_thd*]

terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

 

[Scouse]

Had he threatened to do it???

nah...

 

[stu]

I couldn't be arsed to read most of the above, but I'll just say...

Originally posted by camazotz
I certianly agree with the "image" situation, america is of the "justice seen to be done" brigade, but that does not defer away from the fact this guy is probably a terrorist willing to kill people.

fuck it then, 'probably' is ok for me! After all, Gerry Conlan was probably a terrorist, so we locked him up, and that all went ok didn't it...