No such thing as free speech in the new world order

[PT]

just to make sure I understand and this should clear up the question. you say kill Eric Smythers(or freako104 if you prefer). you cannot be arrested until i have the knife in my back and am dead correct?

Wrong, someone makes a contract to have someone killed, the death does not have to happen before they can be arrested. Now, obviously it wouldn't be for murder, but conspiracy to commit murder, or something similar.

 

[Gonz]

I could can be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder if I conspired with someone else. If I put the knife there I can be charged with murder. If I shouted from the rooftops to all that can hear, "KILL FREAK" then no.

 

[Luis G]

Wasn't the US goverment the one that forbid the re-broadcasting of Osama Bin Laden's messages ??

Gonz, do you support such action?, if so, why is it right to limit his freedom of speech but it is not right to do it on others.

 

[MrBishop]

Damn you guys...one at a time.

Usama is the financier & leader of an organization whose very existence violates United States & Internatioanl laws.

I beg to differ. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. Their very existance was to run the country, support their laws, run hospitals etc...much like the Presidency/Senate etc is in the USA. Osama himself led it.

Hitler simularly led his country and the Third Reich was the government. They ran legally

BUT

Here's where Osama, Saddam and Adolf differ from George.... They lost. To the victor goes the right to write the history books to their advantage.

Osama helped pay for and train a group of people who destroyed the twin towers.
America helped pay for and train the people who created the Atomic bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Saddam invaded Kuwait and was suspected of holding on to weapons of mass destruction.
Israel invaded Palestine and are suspected of holding nuclear weapons

Hitler invaded most of europe, killing millions
England invaded most of europe and parts of Africa and Asia, killing millions

See what I mean about perspective.

 

[paul_valaru]

Israel invaded Palestine and are suspected of holding nuclear weapons

palastine wasn't invaded, the modern country of isreal was created by the UN

whether you think that is fair or not is another discussion I don't get involved in anymore.

and all the extras they took in the other wars, well they never started teo wars, and to teh victors go the spoils.

and they have nukes, 100%

 

[Squiggy]

In the US, we write the history before the event. Just to make sure nobody tries to confuse it with facts...

 

[Gato_Solo]

and they have nukes, 100%

That has never been proven, paul_valaru. Israel will niether confirm, or deny, those claims, and nobody in the region wants to find out.

 

[paul_valaru]

while there are no confirmed reports, they have had a nucllear program for a long time, and it is widely beleived that hye had the bomb by 1966

Who really has them

United States, perhaps as many as 9300 weapons.
Russia, perhaps as many as 9500 weapons.
Britain, 185 weapons.
France, 460 weapons.
Red China, 400 weapons. Taiwan is not pursuing atomics.
North Korea, has at least one, perhaps as many as six. Actively pursuing a multiplicity of strategies to annoy the United States, including a long range missile program. Still, their people eat grass.
South Africa had six bombs, supposedly all have been destroyed. Comfort level nearly 100%.
India, tested their first one in 1974. Has perhaps 30 weapons.
Pakistan, also tested one in May 1998. The stability of the Pakistani regime is a concern to everybody. They have perhaps 15 weapons.
Israel began a nuclear program in the mid 1950's, and certainly had nuclear weapons by 1966 or 1967. Why so many Arabs attacked a nuclear power is a mystery. The CIA estimates Israel to now possess between 75 and 130 nukes.
Ukraine has returned all 3000 of its tactical nukes from its territory to Russia. It is not clear if they possess other nuclear weapons. Comfort level 90%.
Kazakhstan had 1410 nukes, all of which were purportedly returned to Russia by 1995. Comfort level 85%.
Belarus. By November 1996, all nuclear weapons were returned to Russia. Comfort level 98%.
(while Cuba refused to sign the NPT, they do not have a weapon.)

Who's trying to get them

Saudi Arabia has expressed intention to obtain atomics.
Iran. They're trying really hard, but with limited success until quite recently. Has a functioning enrichment plant. They will have the bomb by 2005. Highly enriched uranium was found on inspected equipment by the AEA in mid-2003, which the Iranians claim was leftover from a previous owner.
Iraq taken out of the running by Gulf War II.
al Qaeda. But see this Daily Rotten article. Comfort level nearly 100%.
Brazil and Argentina were both trying to build nukes, but both seem to have stopped around 1992. Brazil has actually been researching atomic energy since the 1930's. Comfort level 99%.
Libya is not trying to build or acquire nukes. Comfort level 100%.
Japan is considered a paranuclear state, in that it could have a nuclear weapon ready in mere months.
Shoko Asahara, head of the Aum Shinrikyo cult, attempted to purchase nuclear weapons in the 1990's from ex-Soviet states.

 

[Squiggy]

Thats funny, Gato.....

 

[freako104]

palastine wasn't invaded, the modern country of isreal was created by the UN

whether you think that is fair or not is another discussion I don't get involved in anymore.

and all the extras they took in the other wars, well they never started teo wars, and to teh victors go the spoils.

and they have nukes, 100%

apparently Israel was once Palestine and the Jews took it so maybe thats what he meant?

 

[ris]

I beg to differ. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. Their very existance was to run the country, support their laws, run hospitals etc...much like the Presidency/Senate etc is in the USA. Osama himself led it.

i hate to let factual information get in the way of a good debate but the taleban were the rulers of the country and as far as i know osama bin laden, while sheltered by the taleban, was not a member of its ruling council or the dictator at its head. the reason why international forces entered afghanistan was that bin laden was holed up in the mountains and the taleban refused to go and get him for them.
the ultimatum was passed that if they didn't go and get him then the international community would and most likely take the regime down too if resistance was encountered.

i suppose that is the odd bit about the members of the taleban who currently reside in camp x-ray could be considered regular prisoners of war by virtue of being the armed forces of the country involved [uniformed as such, obviously]. if this is the case then they should be declared prisoners of war under the geneva convention.

as for osama's freedom of speech - he could argue that his comments were not intended to insight violence and any violent acts merely coincidence. his words are protected by freedom of speech and if he doesn't carry any specific actions out himself then he could be innocent.

it's all nonsense of course, he is the primary funder, organiser and video star of his organisation and as such can be correctly connected from words to deeds. but it does show the dodgy ground that an unbounded freedom of speech possesses - the idea that words are only words and cannot create hate would be a wonderful ideal but people are impressionable, easy lead beings.
i think if you want to say what you like then be prepared for the consequences, and be prepared to take responsibity for the potential of your words to become the actions of another.

 

[MrBishop]

i hate to let factual information get in the way of a good debate but the taleban were the rulers of the country and as far as i know osama bin laden, while sheltered by the taleban, was not a member of its ruling council or the dictator at its head. the reason why international forces entered afghanistan was that bin laden was holed up in the mountains and the taleban refused to go and get him for them.
the ultimatum was passed that if they didn't go and get him then the international community would and most likely take the regime down too if resistance was encountered.
.

Woulld you say that the destruction/bombing of large parts of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban to be a bit over the top? If the target was bin Laden, then why attack all of Afghanistan? Why not send in some black-ops and merely assasinate him? Why remove the entire gvt, under which he flourished?

We have multiple rapists up here in CAN, and they might be members of the Liberal party. Should the entire liberal party be dismantled, or merely that individual?

Not sure if I'm getting my point accross, but it basically comes down to overkill IMHO. They could've bombed the hell out of where they though he was, or entered Afghanistan looking for him without using targets of opportunity within the capital, where they were pretty sure that he wasn't.

 

[Gonz]

Afghanistan has a history of supporting terrorism & was basically a clearing house for jihadists. We asked nicely if they would fetch that sumbitch for us. They said no. We asked nicely if we could come get him. They said no. We said we're coming in if he ain't coming out & they said so. Dumbasses.

 

[Gonz]

OK. You've all given me a ration of shit, now it's my turn.

"Fuck money. I don't rap for dead presidents.
I'd rather see the president dead. It's never been said,
but I set precedents and the standards and they can't stand it. ...
We as Americans. Us as a citizen. We've got to protect ourselves ..."

Isn't that hate speech & shouldn't it be censored?

 

[freako104]

in a sense yes but i think he means to protect ourselves frm our govt

 

[Gotnolegs]

OK. You've all given me a ration of shit, now it's my turn.


Isn't that hate speech & shouldn't it be censored?

Yes it is, but imho no more than

As far as the high risk groups...let 'em die

Saying you wish someone was dead, or should be left to die is not the same as inciting others to commit the act. In an ideal word no-one would do this and no one would publicly wish someone else dead, but they do.

 

[Squiggy]

Afghanistan has a history of supporting terrorism & was basically a clearing house for jihadists. We asked nicely if they would fetch that sumbitch for us. They said no. We asked nicely if we could come get him. They said no. We said we're coming in if he ain't coming out & they said so. Dumbasses.

Kinda like we did with the Shah of Iran and Marcos from the Phillipines and....

 

[Gotnolegs]

Afghanistan has a history of supporting terrorism & was basically a clearing house for jihadists.

You do know the history of Afghanistan don't you? You do know how these "Terrorists" originally got their hands on the weapons they have don't you?

Good, then I don't have to point out that whilst they were fighting against the Russians the US couldn't do enough for them...

 

[chcr]

You do know the history of Afghanistan don't you? You do know how these "Terrorists" originally got their hands on the weapons they have don't you?

Good, then I don't have to point out that whilst they were fighting against the Russians the US couldn't do enough for them...

That was when they were our friends. Kind of like Iran used to be when the shah was in power (before they threw him out) and Saddam was when he was fighting Iran....