Cops use terror powers to lift BBC man's laptop after ISIS interview Police have seized the laptop of a BBC journalist who had interviewed men identifying themselves with jihadist organisation Islamic State in order to access these communications. The laptop of Secunder Kermani was taken by police under powers available through the Terrorism Act 2000, according to the Independent. The Register …
I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources as if they're doctors who arn't allowed to discuss patient details. They're simply employees for a media organisation that exists to make a profit - if they have information that could help police they should hand it over. End.
Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.
The BBC does things like dispute the "45 minutes WMD" dodgy dossier that was given as justification for our war in Iraq. And only last week it was confirmed that what we all suspected was true - the Tony Blair was Bush's side even before the House of Commons had debated the issue.
Oh, and the source was found dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#Contact_with_Andrew_Gilligan
"The BBC does things like dispute the "45 minutes WMD" dodgy dossier that was given as justification for our war in Iraq. And only last week it was confirmed that what we all suspected was true - the Tony Blair was Bush's side even before the House of Commons had debated the issue.
Oh, and the source was found dead."
Non sequitur argument, and it is known very well that Daesh are publicly stoning homosexuals, throwing them from tall buildings and then stoning them, murdering Yasidi men, raping their wives and children - some of pre-pubescent age - setting fire to Jordanian pilots, trapped in iron cages [...].
Sometimes I hold contempts in the Reg in contempt, this sort of bollox I excoriate and hold in contempt. It is the lowest, most silly and childish form of non sequitur reasoning.
>"Obviously, you don't care much for democracy."
>>Since when have newpapers ever cared about it? Trial by media is one of their favourite pastimes.
FFS Boltar. You write a strident post about the BBC, then when challenged you use the behaviour of some newspaper to justify your comment.
Hey, we have no problem with you having contrarian views, but you do get a bit slippery when asked to expand upon them. Y'know, not citing sources but demanding them from others, that sort of thing.
And yesterday, you made a tit of yourself by objecting to people being polite. http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2015/10/28/oracle_sparc_m7/#c_2678947
Are you having a bad week?
I think it's disgusting that the state security apparatus has to go through all this pointless bureaucracy to access data from the state broadcaster.
To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.
To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.
Yep we should make it all one body, easier to name as well, we can call the police the nose, the news agency the mouth, security services can be the fingers...
I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room in every house that the government, police and every large corporation can access through the insecure internet 24/7. That is the only way we will be one step ahead of all the terrorists that are hiding in all our neighborhoods.
Signed: G. Orwell.
"The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even."
Ditto assuming journalists always have the publics best interests at heart. All they want is a salacious story that sells copies or gets viewers. You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please.
"The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."
Who, Murdoch?
>You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please.
FFS!!
Ratings are not the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. Their current affairs output is subject to regular review by the BBC Trust, as well as navel-gazing and viewer feedback... see the Radio 4 Media Show for examples.
The BBC isn't perfect, but it leads to an infinitely better state of affairs than in the US, where Fox and CNN dominate, and a comedy show is considered the most trustworthy news source by many.
Not disputing the need for a free press, but ...
"Ratings are not the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. "
However, not to be too pedantic, but my personal experience where I have actually been part of the news reported by the BBC, I would add that;
"Neither the truth nor impartiality are the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. "
The BBC is but a shadow of its former self and no longer a reliable source, something that somewhat pains me to admit.
" "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even."
Ditto assuming journalists always have the publics best interests at heart. All they want is a salacious story that sells copies or gets viewers. You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please. "
The BBC has a very big profit making arm, one which is funded by the licence fee and taxation and is growing all the time... ...to the detriment of the market. It is also true to say that the BBC advertises its own products, and it is true to say that it is engaged in a very big ratings battle. It is disturbing to see this large corporation exercising so much power, when the people behind this are substantially comprised of individuals with a political philosophy of quasi liberal-socialism which includes the concept of 'false consciousness', thus enabling them - like the Labour party - to know better, and thereby destroy parts of British culture and history; for example Florence Nightingale was made into a racist and the BBC were challenged; their weak excuses fell and they apologised, but this is happening a great deal as poorly educated graduates, spoon fed risible crap, flow into the BBC. They have been caught with their pants down, making the news, operating quiz shows for which there were no winners or for which winners were selected, falsifying the news, and on it goes; I can produce evidence for this and am among the sort of people who continually badger them for their misdeeds.
The BBC has become so powerful that, during the Proms, it has been operating a socialising mechanism for thousands of pounds; free tickets and booze for the famous, squeezing their hands and persuading them to speak against cutting them from many radio stations and too many TV channels. Similarly, they persuaded people to sign a letter condemning the 'cuts'. The BBC are given billions of pounds, both by direct taxation (licence fee) and indirect (govt. finance), and until recently people who failed to pay received a criminal conviction and often a spell in gaol. Even if you do not watch any TV programmes (and to watch any of the BBC's competitors such as Sky, ITV and such you must pay the BBC's licence fee), having a television and using the net to view television programming can get you into trouble; Lord Hall wants licence fee money from computers and mobile phones as well.
This is the tip of the iceberg; if you look beneath the covers you'll find that the BBC have some excessively high earning staff, and that recruitment of vital posts comes more often than not from within their own PC ranks.
The BBC would be fined heavily for anti competitive behaviour were this a genuine market, and that is the point; this is a state/licence fee funded organisation, operating in a commercial setting, staffed by a mix of people (particularly in senior positions) whose aggregate political and social philosophy is at variance with the population they presume to serve. It does not matter what you or I think, but it does matter what people want to see (and fewer repeats by this wealthy broadcaster would be a start) and what the truth is, and it certainly is not (e.g.) twisting Neil Kinnock's words to upset US politicians (I hereby show less bias than the supposedly unbiased BBC:
BBC drama commissioning controller Ben Stephenson; "We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking." Mark Thompson: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left.". Andrew Marr: "The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large [All this] creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”. Telegraph: "Horrible Histories criticised for inaccuracy after showing fictional Florence Nightingale racially discriminate against black nurse Mary Seacole, BBC Trust finds" "I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’". Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter.
You can Grep this stuff on the web, and worse.
"The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."
Yeeeessss, but this was an interview of an outspoken terrorist, a part of a bogus state "ISIS" (more appropriately known as Daesh, or something underfoot), and it has bugger all to do with holding the powerful to account. FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered.
"FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered."
You know what? I don't actually totally disagree with you. I do feel that there is too much chatting and not enough action on the subject of how to deal with ISIS, especially in the west. People are suffering under these barbarians and we're not actually doing much about it.
Russia, on the other hand, seems to have little hesitation in taking direct action, so I don't think it's the "Marxists" who are doing the prognosticating any more than its "Capitalists" who are bogging actions down in endless meetings and debates.
> I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources as if they're doctors who arn't allowed to discuss patient details.
Let's take a hypothetical situation. Say you're a member of some essentially harmless but Government-hated group like the Pirate Party or Occupy or Liberty or Amnesty. Suppose you agree to an interview with a journalist, and they take notes and record your conversation as per normal. They agree to withhold your name from the published copy because that might make you (even more of) a target.
Then the police come along and seize that laptop. They now have everything. Your name, your contact details, which groups you advocate for, what you plan to do, everything on the record and everything you and the journalist agreed would be off the record.
You're in the shit.
The next thing that happens is that word gets around. Pretty soon, nobody will give interviews. What that means is that the only people giving interviews are those "in authority" and only their side of any story is reported.
If that looks a lot like the current state of affairs, it's not a coincidence.
Addendum -
In this case, it's even worse. Suppose this journalist interviewed you in your capacity as a member of Liberty or Amnesty. But the police seized the laptop on the grounds that journalist had also interviewed an ISIS member (and remember, membership of a group is not illegal. Only taking illegal actions is illegal).
But the police got your details and your conversation too. They got the journalist's pre-copy. Suppose some of what you said was used along with some of what the ISIS guy said? Boom. You're now deep in with ISIS and so is every other member of Amnesty. Imagine what a quiet leak to the Daily Mail could do with that. Imagine the idiot public outcry, the campaigns to get your group - which only cares about human rights and civil liberties - banned as terrorists.
Imagine David Cameron rubbing his hands with delight. Or Paul Dacre. Or Rupert Murdoch.
Honestly, this is a travesty. It must stop.
"membership of a group is not illegal"
That very much depends on the group, there are proscribed groups and organizations, membership of which is punishable by law.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf
I do agree with the rest of what you said though.
"(and remember, membership of a group is not illegal. Only taking illegal actions is illegal)."
Wrong, and, remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Membership of organisations such as (from memory) IRA, PIRA, the UDA, the Red Hand Gang, Al Mahajiroun, ISIS (properly known in the middle east as Daesh) and such is illegal. Why? Because they want to kill people like you, me and so on. This is how the democratic rights of people in these fora are protected though, reading things that are printed here, one might be forgiven for wondering... ...about the state of education in this country, about the state of awareness in people whom the like of Daesh/ISIL want to kill, most especially about the ability of people to read and their powers of discrimination (independence of thought if you like) and so on; people who are members of murderous organisations that are at self declared war with this country know such organisations to be proscribed. Terrorism is an offence, to say nothing of an affront to human rights, to democracy (viewed by Plato as the least evil option available) and to common sense.
If you and people like you are arguing these points as an exercise, well you fail miserably. If you mean it, have a nice death when your turn comes at the hands of these people. As you read my lines think of the poor Yasidi girls that have been repeatedly raped by these barbarians and made pregnant, think about the show executions by axe, RPG7, knife and the autos da fe experienced by the like of that poor Jordanian pilot who, one can reasonably argue, held a more faithful view of Islam than the Islamo-facists of Daesh, Al Mahajiroun and others.
You are welcome to go out there, tell them you are not a believer, and 'live the dream'. Why don't you do that and come back in a year with a report?
"Then the police come along and seize that laptop. They now have everything. Your name, your contact details, which groups you advocate for, what you plan to do, everything on the record and everything you and the journalist agreed would be off the record."
Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record? Laptops can be lost or stolen as well as seized. All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.
Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record? Laptops can be lost or stolen as well as seized. All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.
What should he have done then? Memorise the discussion and hope he got it right when writing the story, and only use quill and ink for writing it? And only use pigeons to communicate?
What he could have done is work off USB sticks per story - on OSX you can even set it up that that crypto is transparent until someone tries to use it on another machine - but under RIPA he'll have to provide password anyway or face contempt of court charges.
I agree that this is a heavy handed approach, and I don't see this as correct. As far as the story currently goes, this story is not assisting in terrorism and so RIPA should not have been used. That is, based on the currently available facts.
> Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record?
That observation is actually correct, at least in my experience with the journalists I have dealt with. Appropriate precautions were taken, proportionate to how sensitive the information was.
If the journalist was doing his job thoroughly, chances are that no useful information will be obtained about the target by the police.
This, however, still leaves open the question rightly pointed out by others of third party information disclosure. Information which may not, by itself, merit special precautions, but when combined with other sources may become compromising.
"What that means is that the only people giving interviews are those "in authority" and only their side of any story is reported."
This is what already happens. You have journalist either interview 'dissident' in darkened room, and disguised voice, or its some hairy tattoo'd dork, wearing a Tshirt with last months pizza and coffee stains. They then cut to some well dressed fellow in a bright smart office, with a row of hardback books behind him, dissing everything that previous oink said.
And a few more case studies could be
1) A contractor working on the Chinese built Hinckley power station concerned about standards
2) A care worker in a badly run hospital
3) A prison officer in a prison with corrupt fellow officers
4) A taxi driver in Rotherham (for example) concerned about the behaviour of other drivers
5) Etc..
The Press are afforded a degree of 'legal' protection because when their profession is working at it's best; it is on the side of the weak against the powerful. They aren't always right, but which of us are?
I don't understand the comparison.
A better comparison would be if a reporter interviewed a murderer, still on the run.
I think the police would be well within their rights to ask for information. Obviously, the journalist would be pretty dumb to then announce this fact widely.
"Let's take a hypothetical situation. Say you're a member of some essentially harmless but Government-hated group like the Pirate Party or Occupy or Liberty or Amnesty."
There is no way on earth that even a risible, moon faced jackanape could consider a 'representative' of Daesh (currently planning mass casualty attacks in the UK, after a long period of rape, pillage, torture and murder in the middle east) can be compared with any of these, though your advocacy for the 'Pirate Party' is of itself interesting, pale though it is by comparison with Daesh. </Boggle>
Boltar,
may I suggest you visit an establishment called "A library"
Shuffle along to the section called 'history'
Find some things (books) that cover political history, civil unrest, assasinations, political movements, 'banned groups' you will find references to situations where the powers-that-be have dealt with people that have opinions they disagree with.
The state will use any tools it has - and stretch them to achieve ones it doesn't have to achieve its' goals.
You may want to ponder that for a while, A LONG WHILE...
Regards,
jay
Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.
Ok then.
To the main point about whether journalists have a right to protect their sources: apparently they do, under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act.
There are exceptions to this rule though, one of which is - you guessed it - national security. I'd hazard a guess that that trump card gets played quite a lot these days.
As I said before, all these so called "interviews" do is give the enemy a chance to spread propaganda and lies. It is the same thing as aiding and abetting the enemy in a wartime setting and should be treated that way. If you have knowledge of the enemy's plans or location, withholding that information from the government is a crime.
This is not "Journalism", you are literally putting murderers on a soap box in Piccadilly Square and giving them free airtime to say what they want. Why do the rights of terrorists exceed the rights of the victims? The terrorists took their lives so they cannot speak. The terrorists should never have a public voice for that very reason alone.
It's the BBC, not FOX, Sky or CBS, so your profit comment isn't applicable.
You do understand that they get these interviews because of the fact some reporters are outside of the Agenda laden apparatus right ? You might also notice that many of us on here are over fifty, Technologists, and have real life experience in these matters that blunt your uninformed opinions.
They are, and many will go to prison rather than undermine that position!
If journalists don't stand up to this kind of thing, they effectively would become unable to work on any controversial subject without a risk of being seen as an arm of the state. This would not only undermine their ability to report, but it could even get people killed.
How would you report on a conflict for example, imagine say Northern Ireland in the 1980s if anytime anyone spoke to you those tapes / records could be seized by police and the journalist forced to reveal names?
Journalism is about investigating and understanding situations, not about gathering evidence for prosecutions.
Protection of confidentiality of journalistic sources in European Law was also established by a ECHR judgement Goodwin v the United Kingdom in 1996.
If you want a functioning press and an ability to investigate, you need that kind of protection. It's one of the fundamental cornerstones of a democracy, and one which is sadly lacking in many (most) European countries national legal frameworks, including the UK.
You sir get one of my very few downvotes and I'm talking single figures over the 15 years I have been using this site, though I only started commentarding recently to be fair as I actually enjoyed reading the the opinions and thoughts of others who are usually quite like minded which is probably down to a shared age and experience. Kiddies?
I'm not going to make any of the many well put points already done however I will say this, the moment the press is owned by the government (which is pretty close as it is) then you can kiss all your freedoms goodbye.
> if they have information that could help police they should hand it over. End.
Right, yes, and then paint a big target on the back of *every* journalist in the world because they're obviously working for the security services.
This is the same kind of short-sighted stupidity which has resulted in suffering for many people because someone in the CIA had the bright idea of using a vaccination programme to track down Osama Bin Laden and great, fine, it worked, they got him.
Unfortunately they didn't think beyond their narrow goals and now the plan to eradicate Polio worldwide is under threat because vaccine workers in Pakistan have been threatened or murdered as people there think they're spies.
Now journalists (BTW that's *proper* journalists, the ones who working to find out the truth of what is really happening in the world, not those who work for gutter rags like the Mail or take the Murdoch shilling) are going to find it so much harder to do their job or won't be able to take anything more than paper note because their sources are going to refuse anything that might be on a laptop etc that could be seized because Terrorism...
Bravo, boltar, you've just made the world so much safer!!!
"Right, yes, and then paint a big target on the back of *every* journalist in the world because they're obviously working for the security services."
why not? If the idiot journalists are interfering in areas they're not wanted then they deserve everything that happens to them
they are interfering in a war - and should accept the inevitable consequences, death included.
> If the idiot journalists are interfering in areas they're not wanted
"Areas they're not wanted"? Not wanted by whom...? (I bet you'd consider the reporters who exposed the My Lai massacre were "not wanted" and "traitors" for "helping the enemy"...)
"The first casualty of war is the truth" (Attributed to various)
This post has been deleted by its author
x,
may I point out that I really don't think you have thought this through?
What would you expect the media/state apparatus you live in to do if any of your children, folk that work for you etc were kidnapped/executed/maimed whilst going about their business in foreign climes?
So you would NOT want the Diplomatic representative of your country to make representations to his/her counterpart in the 'offending' country?
I mean the locals over there according to you would be able to say 'why are that f'wit foreigner and his henchmen poking their noses into our locale...?'
Be VERY CAREFUL what you wish for.
Kind regards,
jay
"What would you expect the media/state apparatus you live in to do if any of your children, folk that work for you etc were kidnapped/executed/maimed whilst going about their business in foreign climes"
@fruityloon
I'm not sure how your question relates to the subject matter. No-ones offered to kidnap or maim anyone.
x7,
it really isn't that complex....
If any of the aforementioned unpleasantness were to happen re someone you care for (and I genuinely hope it doesn't btw), HOW WOULD YOU HEAR ABOUT IT????
Which is one infinitely small example of how the press in its' forms in most countries can expose shite going on that is basically wrong...
Be careful what you wish for my friend.
Thanks for taking the time to comment (and I am not being sarcy btw).
Cheers,
jay
Best troll ever, a page full of replies and it wasn't even subtle. Just goes to show how dumb El Reg readers have become although maybe I'm being unfair and it's just the new ones. I blame the post pub nosh features, they've turned you all into a bunch of brain dead "wobblies".
> Best troll ever,
The point of a troll is that they say something they *don't* necessarily believe in themselves, but they just want to wind people up and start an argument (see Clarkson for details).
The thing is that, if you read their posts, boltar and x 7 (and, oh look, Scorchio!! is back too!) *do* actually believe in what they're writing and they won't listen to any argument which disagrees with them because they *know* they're right.
"Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down."
Have an upvote. Democracy is a fragile thing, and the Russell square/Tube incidents showed how certain people (many of whom are now in a self declared hostile state) want to tear it down. When I listened to reporters on the Today Programme wittering on about the cleverness of Libyans who tied goats to their tanks, so the NATO aerial forces would not bomb them, I remembered how once the BBC was extremely careful in these matters, and would already have notified the security services of their data.
This should not have been done without prior consultation with the appropriate bodies; interviewing terrorists who have set up a hostile rogue state and have declared us a target and, indeed, are targeting us is something to be done with security oversight, and not in the silly ways the BBC have adopted.
Back to goats and tanks, Gaddafi's air force was still active and, whatever one may think of the insurgents, broadcasting to Gaddafi the means to identify them was pure stupidity, a hallmark of the modern BBC. Such reporters would be among the first to angrily ask the question why if the planned Daesh mass attacks do occur and are massively successful, ditto the down voters. Death has the trick of making people think in straight lines.
That's all well and good - up to the point when (using the same powers) the police kick your door in and squash your head into your carpet in front of your children because someone somewhere "says" you're a terrorist, government whistle blower, animal rights/green energy campaigner, member of anonymous, Accrington Stanley supporter...!
Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation.
As a self appointed representive of the libertarian right, could I join in to even things up by saying that you Boltar, have dug yourself a pit and kept on digging, and there's a plaque at the bottom that says (in its politest form) "Boltar is a Berk". Is that sufficiently ad hominem enough?
Spying on journalists or snatching their data is the work of the Stasi, past and present. Regardless of who journalists are speaking to, I don't want the bumbling flatfeet and Sturmbahnfuhrer May to have their grasping hands on it. These are the people who maintain that the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, and that the subsequent parody of an inquest was an acceptable cost of our "freedom". Not in my name, mate.
Moreover, why do the police need to snatch journalistic data? If the police weren't so bloody inept, they'd already know who the putative jihadis were. FFS they've got enough powers to intercept and store our communications, CCTV on every street corner, recording of cell phone tower attachments and ANPR movements, etc etc. If an essentially one man band journalist can find himself a handful of bearded lunatics, why can't the entire resources of state do a better job, without having to seize journalists data, potentially endangering intermediary contacts, the journalist himself, and press reporters trying to cover extremist activity around the world?
"they've got enough powers to intercept and store our communications, CCTV on every street corner, recording of cell phone tower attachments and ANPR movements."
They even made a (laughable) program on C4 to showcase how NO ONE CAN EVER ESCAPE THEIR MIGHTY SKILLZ! Seriously, did anyone watch that guff?
Ahahahahah
Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation.
I think that can be reduced to :
Ad hominem - the usual response of <<insert ad hominem here>>;
It's almost as if you've heard a term, and thought it would make you sound clever if you tried to win an argument with it, without bothering to find out what it actually means first. In general, it's probably not best to accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy by committing the same fallacy yourself.
> > he's as far from the left as you can get without invading Poland
>Owwww. Nice one. I must store that expression somewhere :).
To be fair, we don't know that he hasn't invaded Poland. We only know their leader is called something that isn't "Matt Bryant" and their policies differ markedly from his in almost exactly every respect.
Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation
Accusations of ad hominem are the last resort of those caught out not getting their facts right. That becomes personal by default because facts are facts, but (mis)interpretation is personal.
Utterly amazing. You respond to that which you claim is an ad hominem attack by using the same kind of patronising and insulting language that defined your opening post. Language that in fact provoked my original post which would have been worded very differently had your tone not been so contemptuous. Furthermore although I belong to the left politically I am neither so ignorant or arrogant that I fail to recognise that there are many amongst the libertarian right who are also concerned about this kind of behaviour from "The Man". (See Ledswinger's post on this thread.) Something you are very clearly ignorant of. The issue of freedom of speech and freedom from excessive intrusion whether it is the State that does it or an example of BigCorp is of very great concern to many of us on both the left and the right of politics. There is fact a long tradition of social authoritarianism on both the left and the right and its opposite - an opposition that is reflected in Ledswinger's posting, mine and indeed many others on this thread. Suggest that you consider a paraphrase of an old saying. "Post in haste, repent at leisure".
"... neither so ignorant or arrogant"
that would be "... neither so ignorant nor arrogant"
"Something you are very clearly ignorant of"
that would be "Something of which you are very clearly ignorant".
Don't let the froth get in the way of your excellent post.
B+ - can do better --- Teacher Tom
I wonder if in Boltar's mind they are pronouncing their wisdom to a mob of naïve yoofs whose heads have been filled with misguided righteous idealism? I think most of us here concerned about things like this are actually the older, cynical ones who have been around long enough to see how successive governments misuse such powers time and again. We're not "kiddies" (not that there's anything wrong with that). We're people who have watched the endless churn of Talibans and IS's and Husseins go from hero to villain (and occasionally back again) and have actually read our history. We'd actually like to be able to understand the enemy of the day, not just listen to the official version. Something hard to do when the government tries to turn every journalist into an informant.
My favourite quote today is the Head of MI5 complaining that Terrorism is a greater risk than at any point in his career. Which based on his age includes when the IRA was actively blowing up parts of London on a regular basis.
Damn immigrants, coming over here and stealing our home grown terrorist jobs.
"Worth remember that the tactic du jour was highly targeted surveillance, rather than the endless fishing trips they seem to so enjoy these days.
Now that you mention it - it does come across as a bit uninspired and lazy... what to do, what to do... Oh yes, let's thow EVEN MORE money at them!
Indeed. What they willfully and deliberately "misunderstand" is of course that "understand" is not co-identical with "sympathise". The bottom line is that "The Man" has utter contempt for the rest of us - hence the arrogant and authoritarian behavior of the authorities.
Agreed, the following has been shamelessly ripped from the Guardians website but I think it sounds about right. Ironic that it was a jouornalist that write this.
<quote>
Journalism's primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich. They also sought to discipline the rest of the media. The BBC, over the last 30 years, became a shadow of the gutsy broadcaster it was, and now treats big business with cringing deference. Every morning at 6.15, the Today programme's business report grants executives the kind of unchallenged access otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day. The rest of the programme seeks out controversy and sets up discussions between opponents, but these people are not confronted by their critics.
</endquote>
I think you may be missing the point pal, this isn't to do with how the press view themselves or what they do to obtain or secrete information. It is more to do with the extremely far reach and misuse of the RIPA act which was not intended for this purpose, or to be more accurate the vast majority of underhand undertakings it has been cited for since its introduction.
I'm not going to vote you down, It appears that you may be spoiling for an argument and you appear to be angry enough already Kiddo.
Have a pleasant day and remember............... Reading is fundamental to understanding :)
Have an upvote. The media only has a responsibility to report the news, not manufacture it.
Interviewing known terrorists like ISIS in order to manufacture a contrarian viewpoint shouldn't warrant any protection for these so called "journalists". Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions.
It should be illegal to provide any media exposure to or for terrorists. They do not deserve any consideration and their supporters deserve deportation (at a minimum).
Interviewing known terrorists like ISIS in order to manufacture a contrarian viewpoint shouldn't warrant any protection for these so called "journalists". Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions.
I'm confused. If a reporter for Newsnight is a 'so called "journalist"', who qualifies as a real journalist? To judge from this post, nobody but the fête correspondent of the Church Times.
In those incidents, the people who were doing the reporting were not the terrorists. It's pretty simple, you don't need to give the terrorists THEMSELVES any airtime or play video of flag burning or other threats. Audio of people screaming "death to whoever" and Allah Akbar etc. does not need to be played.
Some news outlets played the entire videos of people being burned alive. Excerpts would have been enough to get the point across.
Instead what you have is the glorification of such actions by the media in the guise of "reporting".
What you don't get from the BBC is the real video of murdering Palestinians attacking Jews with knives.
You get the reporter LYING saying there was no knife, while uncut video clearly showed he had a knife.
The media have not manufactured Daesh, and sometimes its worth hearing about what the other side have to say, even if it's not what you agree with or you give them some publicity. (pretty sure most of their publicity has been of the sort that would mean most people would happily see them wiped from the face of the planet anyway).
If you do not hear it no matter how abhorrent it may be then you end up having to go by information from only one side, delivered by the likes of Blair* or Bush*, or Murdoch, or Cameron, which is packaged in a much more media and sensibility friendly package, but is just as much bullshit.
*Who is frankly far more responsible for the manufacture of Daesh than any journalist. (But of course according to them not much really).
The media gave them a voice and that's exactly what they are trying to get from western media.
It's the same thing as helping create them. You're helping them to spread their message. All they are is a repackaged Al Qaeda that's nastier and more organized. You think our military created them, but that also shows me where your loyalty lies. If you don't give them a platform to recruit from, you weaken them considerably.
The best defence against extremism is knowledge. It's as true now as it was in the 70's/80's/90's in Northern Ireland. To combat extremism you must first know the mentality of an extremist and in order to know that you must talk to extremists. How many people actually know why the IRA existed (not why it still exists, it takes time for that kind of hatred to be expunged from society)? How many people know that the army were not sent in to combat the IRA, but to actually protect the Catholics from the Protestants? And how many realise that the Troubles ended because the government talked to the IRA instead of carpet bombing half of Belfast? It's the same with ISIS, there is a reason ISIS is a growing terrorist organisation and it can only be finally defeated through knowledge. If you know why people join you can combat the causes, rather than the recruits.
How many people actually know why the IRA existed
I suspect few still (in this country at least) have even heard of the likes of Eamon De Valera, or Michael Collins, the existence of whom provide the all important historical context. In their time, they were treated in turn as terrorist leaders, foreign dignitaries, and finally heads of state (in the case of the first, the other was dead by the time Ireland gained its independence from England).
Note that I'm not in any way equating IS/ISIS/Daesh with these men, but it is worth noting that if you label everyone you disagree with as a terrorist, it makes it far too easy to dismiss them. It is important to understand what drives such people, and what they want, whether you agree with it or not (although in the case of IS, I think pretty much every civilised person is of the opinion that their actions are abominable).
To quote Sun Tzu:
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
To combat extremism you must first know the mentality of an extremist and in order to know that you must talk to extremists
Exactly this. It reminds me of this rather excellent article about what ISIS is, what it wants and how it intends to get there.
The thing is, much of what's in that article is stuff that I'd never seen discussed on TV. Like how central the idea of a caliphate (and ISIS's self-identification as primarily a religious movement) is, or how ISIS justifies beheadings and other acts of terror (bizarrely, they're seen as a way to avoid bloodshed by hastening everyone's conversion to their brand of Islam), and why direct assault on their territory would actually play into their hands (they feel that it would legitimise their claim of being a valid caliphate).
There are several controversial people interviewed in that article and together they provide a compelling picture of who ISIS are and why they are doing what they're doing. Imagine a situation (like the one reported on here) where even talking with these people could cause journalists themselves to be subjected to police attention and have their livelihoods threatened (what else was on that laptop? would any other person be willing to talk to them again, even on unrelated issues?). In fact, this is the classic example of the "chilling effect" you sometimes read about. How can a free press and proper democratic processes survive when talking to the wrong person results in state-sponsored searches, confiscation of your property and the threat of imprisonment (via not handing over encryption keys, assuming they exist)?
Dan,
well, let's extrapolate your argument a little shall we?
During the troubles in England/Ireland/Northern Ireland and USA, you think (in retrospect) that no parties should have been able to report on the widely varying viewpoints therein?
So you also are of the opinion that in any given situation there is 'only one viewpoint' [I am paraphrasing there], WHO DEFINES WHAT THE 'CORRECT' viewpoint is eh?
What is their agenda, who pays their salary, who approved their copy, who pays for their kit...?
Homo sapiens can be a challenging creature, as different folk have different opinions you know?
Have you REALLY thought your statment through? I am always happy to be enlightened and have errors pointed out to me.
Over to you matey.
Cheers,
jay
BOTH the BBC and Al Jazeera and the vast majority of the media today, glorify and amplify the actions of known terrorists and present viewpoints that all existing western authority is bad and that the view of these terrorist is good.
AS I SAID BEFORE, reporting the news is fine, making it up and promoting it as the truth is NOT.
For example there has been almost no mainstream press coverage of the Christians (Yazidis) that have been killed and or raped by Islamists but there is PLENTY of press coverage when some Israeli kills a knife wielding Palestinian. These media outlets orgasm all over themselves when they can negatively portray our military or culture. They deliberately PROMOTE the terrorist views of ISIS instead. It is not news, it is PUBLICITY. These "journalists" even deliberately LIED on TV saying that the Palestinian terrorist did not have a knife when the VIDEO CLEARLY SHOWE ONE.
Furthermore they twist and edit peoples words into convoluted incomprehensible statements that no longer come close to the original events. This is the same thing as lying to the public.
All in order to make the world into the "liberal paradise" they want it to be.
As such, they are terrorist sympathizers not news outlets. They deserve everything they get as a result.
For example there has been almost no mainstream press coverage of the Christians (Yazidis)
Have you heard of a search engine. Hear is how it works
Search for something like Yaziidis murdered by ISIS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065517/Isis-militants-slaughter-300-Yazidi-captives-northern-Iraq-thousands-taken-captive-villages.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32565809
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/05/middleeast/yazidi-women-suicide-in-isis-captivity/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/611558/Islamic-State-ISIS-doctors-Syria-murder-opponents-Putin-airstrikes
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/610940/Islamic-State-ISIS-terrorists-gang-rape-women-Yazidi-convert-Islam-al-Baghdadi
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/10/yazidi-iraq-islamic.html
They look like pretty mainstream media outlets to me?
Perhaps mainstream for you, but too little, too late, too lackluster for most Christians. No where near the outrage of the announcer when complaining one flowershop owner who did not want to serve gays. That overshadowed the murders of Christians exponentially.
By the way, you might want to understand since it is readily apparent you can't. There is a huge difference between being a Christian and being a fundamentalist anything.
Not compared to the constant yammering against Israel, giving part time, intermittent half hearted coverage is even less beneficial than no coverage in some cases.
It still goes on, BTW where are all the hashtags? Where is the uproar, where is the outrage?
No, half hearted to no coverage is all the Christians will ever get because the atheist leftist media gives them short shrift versus giving terrorists all the coverage.
Over here, we see that the BBC makes up the news about the US the way they see fit EVERDAY. They don't report it, they make it up to foster their own agenda.
Especially if it has something to do with our police, guns or military or our religious beliefs.
The BBC are full of atheists, leftists, busybodies, anti gun nutters and gays and they need to go back to their own country and fester in their own mess.
"Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions."
That line could be lifted directly from the dialogue in 1984. Have you ever heard the phrase "to be made an unperson"?
In short, if we allow the complete censorship of criminals, or enemies, then the state gains the capability to brand anyone an enemy (for us to hate) without argument or debate. The States enemies become our enemies....should that be the case?
This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the truth. The truth that the media has been lying to the public for a very long time and that they are behind the glorification of terrorism and make up most of what they "report" to fit their agenda.
If you do not give terrorism a platform, it soon loses much of its effectiveness.
That idea "making an unperson" goes back to the Quakers and their practice of shunning an individual or group that stepped over the line.
In the same way that terrorist have. And YES the enemies of the state usually ARE our enemies. Too bad....they are a collective waste of the gift of life and don't deserve better.
Censoring a criminal is done everytime they are convicted and go to prison. They don't deserve and compassion as they have none for you and you are a fool to offer any in return.
"It should be illegal to provide any media exposure to or for terrorists. They do not deserve any consideration and their supporters deserve deportation (at a minimum)."
==========
Given the unfettered support for those lovely irish freedom fighters thats most of the NRA fucked with your laws Dan.
And thats before we get onto the issues of the support for the Afghans against the Russians etc. etc.
Best not mention Nelson Mandela either, another long time terrorist in the eyes of the South African goverment.
The IRA "freedom fighters" have NOTHING top do with the NRA or gun laws you stupid ignorant twat. I support the NRA and I support a Free Ireland devoid of British interference. You stole their land like you did all over the world.
The issue there was that YOU BRITISH DELIBERATELY gave them no other choice but to revolt against PROTESTANT rule. In order to throw that rule off, your actions almost justified their attacks on civvies.
We helped the Afghans against the Russian, just not admittedly the right way. Bringing up Nelson Mandela is interesting because he was considered political here, not a terrorist like the British government did.
There is NO such ambiguity about ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. They deserve to die, each and everyone of them.
"Yep, then expect two years inside for refusing to provide access."
Yes and no. You have to divulge passwords and account details, but if they don't exist because you smashed the drive then you cannot. Or you have a dead man's trigger that wipes a computer if you don't log in every day, or something similar, then you can provide access but there isn't anything to see. I don't think it's clear what the result would be then.
"whatever they can find to make your life difficult"
If they can't get you for terrorism, they'll find "images" on your computer and get you for that instead. That's why they seize computers physically rather than simply going to GCHQ and asking their vast intelligence to provide intercepts, like they keep saying they can. That's how they stop all the terrorpedos from getting us, isn't it?!
Isn't RIPA only relevant for something the authorities have physically in their possession? My last reading of it gave me that impression. I.e. if they have an encrypted USB stick, then they ask can ask you for the password. If you have a smashed up USB stick, they can still ask you for your password, because it's still in their possession. A proton mail account however, is not in their possession, and you have no obligation to give them access to it via RIPA.
I've been reading in RIPA (and DRIPA) and it is very unclear (look on some Police forums, they don't seem to have a clue either).
When it comes to physical media it's pretty clear cut, they can demand access.
The bit it get murky on is likes of webmail.
They have the right to intercept data, but it's encrypted.
They can issue international warrants and "force" access, however Protonmail is based in Switzerland and they have VERY strict laws on data and are unlikely to comply.
They do not hold the keys to the account, so technically can't access it if they were asked to.
When you decrypt the mailbox, that is taking place on a server in Switzerland not in the UK.
Therefore is this covered under RIPA.
Discuss.
(Actually it would come down to how good a lawyer you can afford, but lets pretend we are all equal).
Well you have section 49 (1) confirming that protected information has to be in the possesion of the appropriate authorities.
( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III/crossheading/power-to-require-disclosure )
So IANAL, but you cannot be forced to provide a key for something, that the authorities cannot prove they have a physical copy of. That would be considered fishing.
This is a poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller following the Nazis' rise to power and the subsequent attacks on their chosen targets, group after group.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.
I keep both of those in mind when I deal with crap in my life.
I find it *very very* interesting that the wikipedia entry for Niemoller lists a reference to a book (which I just verified is still on my shelves) "They thought they were free" - but the reference has been removed from wikipedia........
Journalists are not above the law. Just posting interviews from acknowledged terrorists is unscrupulous as it promotes/validates their agenda to kill innocent people. Braindead journalists who do these interviews to get viewership at the cost to human lives and national security should be held accountable and all of their activities and digital equipment should be reviewed for evidence in prosecution and prevention of terrorists activities. In no way is this journalists or any other journalists who does these types of interviews, serving the best interest of the public. In fact they are undermining efforts by authorities to protect the populace from these terrorists. These people are treading very closely on treason.
> Easily scared, aren't you.
Have an upvote.
That's what I can't abide. This country didn't freak out during the Blitz or when the IRA (who were actually competent terrorists) were murdering people. The worst the happened was they took the bins away at railway stations.
Our current politicians (and I mean since about 2000) are such utter cowards. And they expect us to be cowards too and give them powers tuck us in at night and keep us all safe and lovely from the Bad Men.
Fuck that. I'm not scared.
This. Exactly this. I'm not scared by terrorists, on principle, because that's what they want.
Hell, it's far more likely - by orders of magnitude - I get killed on my daily commute on the motorway by an outsourced, underpaid, overworked and sleep deprived lorry driver in an accident. That's the 'sleepers' you must watch for.
"Hell, it's far more likely - by orders of magnitude - I get killed on my daily commute on the motorway..."
Shortly after the twin towers malarkey, I heard an interview on the radio (ABC here in The Land of Under) with a retired CIA ant-terrorist specialist. He pointed out that terrorists, even after Sept 11 accounted for only a few hundred deaths during the 20th C. Governments OTOH were responsible for millions of deaths of their own citizens. Hitler 6 million, Stalin 10 million, Mao 100 million...
So I'm not so scared of terrorists; it's governments that scare me.
The publicity of simply being in the news validates these terrorists actions and promotes their cause. If you believe that BBC is completely neutral and just "reports" the news instead of ginning up something else that gets more ratings than "reporting" (just the facts ma'am), you are sadly mistaken and yes you have been infected with their terrorist views.
Your arrogance, naivety and inability to comprehend how the media and terrorists are manipulating you is astounding.
Bloody hell, what's with all the top-level, anonymous comments promoting censorship, abuse of the press and over-reaching government powers here today?
Is The Reg's readership really sinking to the same level as the Daily Mail? Are you all so stupid that you really believe that reporting = sympathising? Or is there some sort of flood coming in from elsewhere?
No they are not in fact if anything seeing these interviews make me think two things, 1. These people are insane in the way that rabid dogs are and need to be stopped. 2. Maybe we should stop fucking around with other regimes because we really aren't learning from it.
At no point though have I felt the need to stop eating bacon and go and behead a kaffir.
1. These people are insane in the way that rabid dogs are and need to be stopped.
I don't believe they are insane and any method of combating them based on this belief will almost certainly be a total failure. They are extremely religious believing that every word of their holy books is literally true.
Any Christian who lived according to the bible would be virtually indistinguishable from ISIS. (Stoning people to death, keeping slaves, eating shell fish in an abomination etc) I feel it is very important that we understand this when trying to combat them. We need to talk to them and and understand not just listen to the UK / US government point of view.
"I don't believe they are insane..."
I think it could be argued that fundamentalist beliefs are possibly a sign of mental disfunction, buts that's an argument for another day. I personally think that adults who believe in sky fairies to the degree that they are willing to kill over it have something not quite right going on upstairs, but I don't have much evidence to support that assumption.
"We need to talk to them and and understand not just listen to the UK / US government point of view."
We're not going to have much success trying to talk to ISIS I fear. Their goal is to provoke a conflict and little else. They've even created an internal rule that states if the Caliph himself speaks to the Kaffir (us) then he will be executed and replaced with one who will not.
Here's a link to what I think is the best analysis of ISIS politically and motivationally that I've seen:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
In fact they are undermining efforts by authorities to protect the populace from these terrorists. These people are treading very closely on treason
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. - Hermann Göring
"In fact they are undermining efforts by authorities to protect the populace from these terrorists. These people are treading very closely on treason."
You are DCI Andrew Gould, and I claim my £10 M&S voucher!
And if you believe so vociferously what you say, you should post under your handle.
Ac,
if one is trying (and failing...) to criticise journalists (as opposed to hiding behind the cowards' curtain on here), may I make a few suggestions:
- learn how to use your keyboard
- try and figure out a clear set of points before touching the keyboard
- do some research - what creditable info do you have to back up your many flimsy accusations (I am being uncharacteristically poilte there btw)?
- try and figure out who the 'authorities' are protecting AND WHY. Clue: it ain't you and me matey..
- what form of treason are you alluding to...?
Clear replies would be much appreciated.
Regards,
jay
How about providing aid and abetting the enemy for one form of treason? In the form of free publicity by interviewing them. And since you would have had to contact them to arrange the interview, you had information related to the location of known criminals that you are obliged by law to give to the government.
But then again "fruitoftheloon" YOU are definitely pro islamist so you wouldn't know the difference.
Dan Paul
You're right on the money every time
ISIS / ISIL / Daesh have declared war on the western world and wish to destroy us, and our way of life. They want an Islamic year zero.
ANY communication with them is communication with the enemy. ANY reporting of their words or views is promulgating the message of people who are sworn to genocide against our civilisation.
Anyone who communicates with them is guilty of treason.
Unfortunately x7, this forum is full of people who support and condone the actions of these murdering terrorists. Especially as it applies to the killings of Americans and Jews.
They have been brainwashed by the BBC and other left leaning media since they first learned to read.
These are much the same people who leave Europe to go fight for ISIS and Al Qaeda. Is it any wonder that their own governments treat them as hostiles?
Unfortunately x7, this forum is full of people who support and condone the actions of these murdering terrorists. Especially as it applies to the killings of Americans and Jews.
I will tone down my opinion of your assumption and leave out the words I would normally use, but being in support of the journalist having the discussion does not in any way equate to supporting the activities and atrocities of ISIS. You are, in effect, using the exact model of thinking the terrorists use: someone who thinks different to you should have no voice. Well, f*ck that. I want to know what drives these people because it means I can fight them better. It means I can work out what exactly they do to get innocent teenagers to throw their lives away in a fight where they are nothing more than cannon fodder. It means I need to know what means they use to communicate so that if I come across it I can alert authorities as any upstanding citizen should (no, this is not something you pursue by yourself).
In other words, I need the knowledge that such journalists gather and that blockheaded idiots like you try to keep away from me because some of what happens over there starts right here, and has to be stopped.
Now, let me see. Who doesn't let me have my own opinion, allows me to think for myself or even accuses me falsely and demands I follow arbitrary rules in conflict with my human rights? Yes, them, but we knew that already.
No, you just did too.
"Well, f*ck that. I want to know what drives these people because it means I can fight them better. It means I can work out what exactly they do to get innocent teenagers to throw their lives away in a fight where they are nothing more than cannon fodder. It means I need to know what means they use to communicate so that if I come across it I can alert authorities as any upstanding citizen should (no, this is not something you pursue by yourself).
In other words, I need the knowledge that such journalists gather and that blockheaded idiots like you try to keep away from me because some of what happens over there starts right here, and has to be stopped."
Don't be such an idiot. You've no chance of carrying out such work. YOU fight them better? Yeah, sure. Idiot journalists don't help in that sense anyway - we will already have ISIS / ISIL penetrated and having journalists around just complicates things by making the Islamic terrorists more sensitive to the spy risk.
YOU don't need any such knowledge. Our security authorities do. Journalists should shut up, get out of the way and let the professionals do their job.
"Who the fuck died and made you the sole arbiter of what I need to know?"
no-one. Its just damned obvious. When amateurs like you start trying to dabble with domestic security its when things go wrong. Idiots like you just confuse things. By pressing for "knowledge" all you do is make that knowledge more freely available on behalf of our enemies. It makes you complicit in their recruiting.
Now go open your mind and shut your mouth
To whom are you referring to when you say "enemies" I wonder? Where is this defined? And who controls what may enter into it? Do any controls on members exist at all, or is the term itself too broad to consider?
If there is something that is missing in the article that is critical to your position, please, by all means, provide a source.
I'll extrapolate your argument, at the risk of making you into a straw-man:
To share any form of knowledge that is controlled by the government is to implicitly deliver it to "enemies" of our own. Accordingly, all information of any importance that is controlled by the government must necessarily be so, or else we run the risk of unregulated actors doing whatever they choose with it.
While I can see your argument as derived from the view of strictly confidential information, relevant to immediate government interests remaining in their control (no confidential document leaks), there's a few flaws immediately preventing it from reconciling with the opinions presented by others present.
The major flaw would likely be that you've made the assumption that whatever was actually taken from the journalist was pertinent to the continued operations of national security forces, in the interest of seeking it for clues on terrorist operations. No such thing can be established from the information presented, nor is it particularly likely that damaging journalist relations with their necessarily confidential sources would contribute to SIGINT in any reasonable way.
In 2014 it was readily established that the NSA's phone collection program did not significantly benefit in any noticeable way from the mass-collection of metadata, as a majority of all significant terrorist operators captured was due to the goodwill of the people around them, who feared for their own safety and reported them. Indeed, they were only able to confirm a single case in the history of the program where it proved vital to locating an offender: a case in which they prosecuted a taxi driver for accepting payment from radical elements in exchange for a ride. With this information on the ineffectiveness of intercepting communications, it's somewhat surprising that it continues regardless, but I suppose that is the world we live in today.
I await your logical refutation.
- Apathetic Canuck
@ Apathetic Canuck
I'm not really too sure what you're trying to say - your argument seems too rambling.
However to try to get to the core of what I think you're asking, there is a possibility that laptop contains records, conversations, photos or other data which may help our security forces locate and eliminate the enemy. The idiot journalist was already in breach of UK law by entering Syria, and arguably further in contravention by speaking to ISIS / ISIL members. In which case he deserves every piece of legal action thrown at him. He deserves prison. As to the idea that he should be free to publicise the terrorists views on the BBC, then that is simply obscene.
Travel to Syria is not recommended at this time, but by no means illegal.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/syria
Have a little respect for someone willing to risk kidnapping or even death, from friendly fire, to try and find the truth. Perhaps the spooks have something to gain from knowing of a single paranoid member of the radicals, who already suspects that they're being spied on regardless.
Unless you're suggesting that this reporter was, in fact, in collusion with them? A rather... serious, accusation, to accuse someone whose purpose in their organization is purely to gather information of attempting to topple the government...
I question whether someone who risks their life should be punished for trying to do their job. Particularly if said job is then stolen from them, their credibility stripped, and for what?
Life may not be fair, but the law needs to be.
- Adverse Criminal
"In response to the significant threat to Australia and our way of life from returning foreign fighters and supporters of foreign conflicts, the Australian Government has enacted amendments to the Criminal Code to prohibit individuals travelling to areas where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activities."
Sounds like it's illegal for The Git to travel London then. Headline in the Australian edition of The Daily Mail:
"Married British ISIS commanders dubbed 'Mr and Mrs Terror' claim bombers are ready to carry out 'lone wolf' terror attacks in the UK - including VJ Day plot targeting the Queen".
Whoda thunkit!
Sure, they were colluding even to get their and do the interview. As far as "risking their life", too bad if they get kidnapped and beheaded.
The fact is that ALL of you chicken shit cowards won't give your own military any credit for their risks to life and limb every day so fuck these so called journalists. They are unprepared, naïve and complete dolts if they take the word of terrorists.
"Now go open your mind and shut your mouth"
Whatever you do, don't say anything that might deter your neighbours' teenage children from going to fight for IS (based on your understanding of the way the world really works). x7 wants the IS promoters to have free reign here...*
Fuckhead!
* He/she/it [delete whichever is inapplicable] has the somewhat naive belief that the authorities protect us. They don't, though they may be observed cleaning up afterwards.
When amateurs like you start trying to dabble with domestic security its when things go wrong. Idiots like you just confuse things. By pressing for "knowledge" all you do is make that knowledge more freely available on behalf of our enemies. It makes you complicit in their recruiting.
Ah, so you're an expert then? You attempt to place yourself in that position by labelling others as amateurs and somehow assume that you have the right to tell others what to do. Here's a hint: you're not. Your comments have already made that clear.
"Ah, so you're an expert then?"
I suspect I have more experience to you, but as you insist on posting as "anonymous communist" its difficult to separate your effuvium from that of the other cowards here, meaning its impossible to get a feeling for your real feelings or mendacity
x7,
if the 'amateur' you are alluding to is indeed an amateur, does that imply that you are a 'professional'?
Would you be so kind as to share with us what your professional contribution to the world at large is? No need to name the organisation, a job title would be fine...
Cheers,
jay
"Who the fuck died and made you the sole arbiter of what I need to know? That is sooo ISIS of you!"
Well, technically, you don't "need" to know. That you "want" to know to improve your understanding of the world that surrounds you is a different issue.
YOU don't need any such knowledge. Our security authorities do. Journalists should shut up, get out of the way and let the professionals do their job.
Really? As you have no clue what A/C does for a living you're making assumptions that are not based on any available facts. However, since you clearly do not value the contributions journalists make to informed debate I would suggest you move to places that agree more with your way of thinking. Russia, maybe, or China. Anything but a democracy will do.
ANY reporting of their words or views is promulgating the message of people who are sworn to genocide against our civilisation.
I rather have a reporter asking decent questions and giving these people the opportunity to show just how far they are removed from reality, even in a civil conversation than have "social" media sites get lots of advertising hits because they find it "difficult" to prevent the upload of videos of the latest atrocities. THAT is the kind of material that has no place.
Blandly assuming that a BBC reporter is going to create a propaganda piece for IS on BBC TV is doing them a major disservice - we need to know what moves these people so we can see how we prevent more people into being brainwashed to join the fight.
Dan,
for the first time ever, I genuinely had to think about how to reply....
Can you please, please, pretty please how you came to the conclusion that I am 'definitely pro islamist'????
That is without doubt the dumbest, most shallow, arse-about-face, utter fuckwit of an accusation I have ever received, but thanks buddy you actually made me laugh!!!
I look forward to your reply, but ideally based on:
- your view of what I have written on this and other threads
- NOT BASED on what yo think I have said or second-guessing...
Over to you boyo...
Thanks for your contribution to the debate btw.
Cheers,
jay
While part of your commentary:
"Braindead journalists who do these interviews to get viewership" is relevant, those journalists who "do interviews to get viewership" are not very likely to be out talking to "Terrorists". Those journo's are lined up outside the Kardashian mansion(s) with telephoto lenses and parabolic microphones, waiting for the next drama lama moment.
And, in reality, I highly doubt anyone *other* than the journalist or their support staff (if they have them) would likely face death due to the interview.
Assumption of Guilt By Association will get even *you* one day, because I'm sure you know someone that has taken an extra breath or two, and some day that will be all it takes.
The PST (Norway's feeble attempt at emulating MI5) recently did the same to a Norwegian film maker who has been working on a documentary on "jihadists". One of his interviewees has been arrested for trying to travel to Syria and the PST wanted all the dirt they could get on this young man for the court case.
The film maker has not just lost all his work but also the chance of working in a similar area in the future. Who in their right minds will speak to that film maker now? Self censorship is much easier to enforce than state censorship.
"Who in their right minds will speak to that film maker now?"
And there in a nutshell you have the reason that journalists do currently enjoy (or did up until this travesty) the right to protect their sources, indeed it is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory. Those who find corruption or wrongdoing in their workplace or elsewhere where a direct report to the authorities is not advisable or possible must have a channel to which this can be brought to others' attention and, if the alleged practice is widespread, the media is often the best way to bring it to the public's attention so that change is demanded.
If journalists are not able to protect their sources then people will not talk to journalists, and the world will become even more corrupt than it already is.
"Can you imagine what would have happened during WWII to a journalist who published an interview with a member of the SS?
Someone from the British Free Corps perhaps? They didn't stop interviewing Mosley, AFAIK.
This just for context, emphasis by me: "On 23 May 1940 Mosley, who was then mostly focused on negotiated peace advocacy, was interned under Defence Regulation 18B along with most active fascists in Britain. [...] His wife Diana Mitford was also interned, shortly after the birth of their son Max; they lived together for most of the war in a house in the grounds of Holloway prison. [...]
The Mosleys were released in November 1943, when Mosley was suffering with phlebitis, and spent the rest of the war under house arrest. On his release from prison he stayed with his sister-in-law Pamela Mitford, followed shortly by a stay at the Shaven Crown Hotel in Shipton-under-Wychwood. He then purchased Crux Easton House, near Newbury, with Diana. He and his wife were the subject of much media attention. The war ended what remained of Mosley's political reputation." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley (sorry for that)
"Pity they didn't shoot him" Aren't we bloodthirsty today... On what grounds would they have shot him? Wartime Britain wasn't like Nazi Germany.
"He and his wife were the subject of much media attention."
Yep, he did get much attention - he was vilified. His views weren't reported, just what a twat he and his wife were (and his wife's family - remember one of them shagged Hitler)
He was lucky he wasn't lynched.
"the likes of x7 want the Britain of today to be precisely like wartime Nazi Germany, but even more effective."
not at all, I'm no right wing sympathiser. If you read the other current threads you'll see that I felt it unfortunate that a Nazi fellow-traveler such as Oswald Mosley wasn't shot
"not at all, I'm no right wing sympathiser."
Your comprehension skills appear a little lacking. I said nothing about right (or left) wing. Hitler was a socialist; Nationalsozialismus translates to National Socialism in English. If you check out The Political Compass (Gurgle it) you will see that Hitler was only ever so slightly right of centre, but very much an authoritarian. And it's the authoritarian stance you espouse that irks.
"And it's the authoritarian stance you espouse that irks"
Well as you're a pompous git I guess everything irks you. I bet not having a schooner of sherry for breakfast irks you. You essentially accused me of being a Nazi, I pointed out I was not. If you can't understand that, then your pompous brain is in your pompous posterior
And again you show your comprehension skills are lacking. I have not "accused [you] of being a Nazi"; I said that you espouse an Authoritarian stance. If that's being a Nazi then Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin, Frederick the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, and Pol Pot were all Nazis.
Oh, and I'm not in the least irked by being "deprived" of a schooner of sherry for breakfast. While I am free to drink as much sherry as I like, at whatever time of day I choose, it's not been my primary choice of tipple since joining the Labor Club at LaTrobe University in 1969.
If you know my habits as well as you seem to think, mine's the coat with the bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc in the pocket. And I'm not in the least irked by it ;-)
" joining the Labor Club at LaTrobe University in 1969."
I commiserate with you.
Presumably in a Labour club you were encouraged to drink port?
After all you always pass the piss to the left
"mine's the coat with the bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc in the pocket"
You have low expectations then
How very odd! One moment you use the term schooner, a measure of beer confined AFAICT to that part of the world known to the constabulary as New South Wales* and the next you misspell Labor. The Australian Labor Party has never included the letter U in Labor.
The port drinkers were in the Liberal (Tory) Club, their meetings were by invite only and held in secret locations.
Clearly you have never drunk a decent sauv. blanc.
http://winefolly.com/review/new-zealand-sauvignon-blanc/
*NSW, the realm of pastel shorts, macchiato with sugar, thin books read quickly and millions of dancing queens. Its capital, Sydney, has more queens than any other city in the world and is proud of it. Its mascots are Bondi lifesavers who pull their Speedos up their cracks to keep the left and right sides of their brains separate.
"Clearly you have never drunk a decent sauv. blanc"
I have, just not from the Antipodes
"Schooner"
Same word, different meaning. In UK parlance a schooner glass is an oversized sherry / port / madeira glass, not a beer glass. I have to admit its becoming an archaic term
"You're not a Nazi, that's true.
...but you are a fascist."
Thats OK, you can think what you like, it doesn't offend me, even though I did point out that Mosley should have been shot
You THINK you know what I am, but I KNOW that you're an idiot. And in the morning when you wake up you'll still be a bleedin idiot
"You're not a Nazi, that's true.
...but you are a fascist."
Thats OK, you can think what you like, it doesn't offend me, even though I did point out that Mosley should have been shot
I'm going to weigh in here and point out that in Nazi Germany, prior to the second world war, there happened something called the 'Night of the long knives'. Adolf Hitler (both a Nazi, and a fascist) had a bunch of his political opponents killed (who were fascists, but not members of the Nazi party).
By saying that Mosley should have been shot, you are pretty much putting yourself in the same position as Hitler. You have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that you have a fascistic authoritarian ideology (anti free-speech and kill those who don't agree with you or oppose you).
Now, you will also notice that I have equated you with Hitler. This therefore invokes Godwin's law, at which point the conversation ends, you should take notice and shut the fuck up.
@Loyal Commenturd
Your argument is based on factual inaccuracy
The "Night of the Long Knives" was an attack on the Sturmabteilung - the SA or "Brownshirts" who by then were fully incorporated into the Nazi party heirarchy. The attack was essentially due to a clash of egos between Hitler and Röhm, representing different factions within the Nazi party.
If you can't get that well documented basic fact of history correct, what else are you confused over?
As to Godwin's law.....is that your answer to everything? Invoke that and then hide anything you personally disagree with under the carpet? Actually I think you misunderstand what Godwin actually said - I suggest you look that up for yourself, I'm getting too bored to do it for you
"Given that each of you only knows about the other from the statements they have made on this forum if you can't see the inherent stupidity in that statement I feel REALLY sory for you"
But I KNOW he's an idiot from the simple fact he's shown himself to be, by claiming he knows what I am. If he wasn't an idiot he would not have made that claim.
PS whats feeling sory? Is that sore in a past imperfect tense?
You don't *know* he's an idiot, you *think* he's an idiot based on what he has written in his posts and what your definition of an idiot is. Other people's opinion may differ.
Likewise he *thinks* you are a *fascist* based on what you have written and on his definition of what a fascist is. Again, other people's opinions may differ.
You have both shared your opinion of the other; to a third party there is no difference in the way that the conclusions were arrived at, and therefore your opinions of each other carry equal weight.
Personally I *think* you are someone who has misguidedly bought into the lie that the US and UK governments have sold you about how these measures are vital for democracy and the American/British way of life. Again that is my opinion based on what you have written; it may, or may not, be accurate.
I utterly deplore and detest ISIS and its various related organisations; I find their practices abhorrent and their philosophy warped and repellant (having actually had chance last night to watch some of the interview in question, which if you had your way I would not be allowed to do). However I believe that journalists have the right to go where they want and interview who they like without fear of reprisal or having to disclose source material. Anything else is allowing the thin end of the wedge; it may be ISIS this time but perhaps next time it will be a journalist who has interviewd a Greenpeace activist responsible for disrupting a Japanese whaling mission, or a member of CND for organising a peaceful protest outside the Trident submarine base or... well you get the drift..
As for "sory" blame a touch screen that I apparently double-tapped too fast, so I was auto-corrected!
" to a third party there is no difference in the way that the conclusions were arrived at, and therefore your opinions of each other carry equal weight."
but therein lies the point: I have no great caring for what third parties think. I have told him, deservedly, that he's an idiot, and thats all that matters. Because he is an idiot.
As for " a member of CND for organising a peaceful protest outside the Trident submarine base", well if the member fell of the quay into the sea I wouldn't feel it essential to rescue them. Another lefty communist-hugging brainwashed fool doing the enemies work. Let him (or her) drown. CND is a foreign financed proxy pressure group dedicated to the overthrow of UK democracy, its just lucky that their membership has declined in recent years: the younger generation are less susceptible to commie brainwashing than their hippy elders of the 1960's
As for whaling? I'd send the Royal Navy's subs down to the Antarctic to silently sink the whaling ships. We can't use them for much else - not enough subs left to form a deterrent to foreign military force.
"CND is a foreign financed"
Hard evidence please? Successive Tory governments throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s tried very hard to prove that CND was foreign funded and failed (wasting a great deal of taxpayers' money in the process). Furthermore despite the fact that the KGB and other eastern European intelligence services have been open to western scrutiny for years now, no evidence linking foreign funding to CND has ever emerged. I am not, and never have been, a member of CND, for the record.
"the younger generation are less susceptible to commie brainwashing than their hippy elders of the 1960's"
Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we are no longer living under the permanent threat of a global thermonuclear war then? Not to mention the fact that the Green Party, who also espouse the scrapping of Trident without replacement, has to a large extent taken over from CND as the political face of nuclear disarmament (since New Labour severed its links with CND), and which has a considerably larger membership, of all ages, than CND ever had.
I also think you are (probably deliberately) missing the point; you can insert a suitable organisation of your liking into the example; unless of course you believe everything the government does is right and should never ever be questioned or protested against.
Either way, and using your own criteria, I conclude that you are an idiot. ;)
Vinyl Junkie
So where did the large cash donations handed in at CND branch meetings from chaps in smelly greatcoats who claimed allegiance to whatever was the favourite "hard left" group of the week come from?
CND was Soviet funded.
Just as much as the UK Commie Party, and a bunch of other socialist activist groups.
I asked for hard evidence; unsubstantiated stories of cash donations handed in at CND branch meetings is not hard evidence. There is absolutely no hard evidence (and practically none of any other sort) that CND was funded by the Soviets (or any other foreign power). I know that many of the members of our local CND who I used to see in my local high street in the 1980s handing out leaflets were friends of my parents and/or parents of my friends. I also saw the same people when they were raising money for the local Round Table, and campaigning on behalf of our local Tory MP. Hardly left-wing.
If you really believe that CND was Soviet funded, please feel free to send a record of your comments on this site, together with your name and address, to CND and see how long it takes them to sue you for libel....
Vinyl Junkie
I'm afraid I have to categorise you - along with your CND chums, as members of Lenin's "useful idiots".
The money was there, though trailing it after all this time I agree would be hard.
However just because time has occluded the trail, it doesn't make my statement incorrect: the money came from the USSR
Not living under threat of global nuclear war? Where have YOU been? We are under a far more sinister threat of global nuclear war since Iran got it's "peace agreement" that lets them get the bomb.
Russia and China both know enough not the "play the game" that can't be won.
Iran and North Korea both would like to launch as soon as possible. They WANT nuclear war.
"You THINK you know what I am, but I KNOW that you're an idiot. And in the morning when you wake up you'll still be a bleedin idiot"
Assumption again. Well done you. It's like watching a little child scream unfair.
And you're a fascist. Here's the definition from Websters (for kids) dictionary.
" a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition "
Note how this doesn't require right wing idealism. Fascist !~ Nazi.
Well as you're a pompous git I guess everything irks you. I bet not having a schooner of sherry for breakfast irks you. You essentially accused me of being a Nazi, I pointed out I was not. If you can't understand that, then your pompous brain is in your pompous posterior
Little boy, there seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of invective you spew and the absence of rational thought and an ability to reason in your brain. Tell me, does it echo in your skull when you talk? As soon as someone comes with a reasonable argument you don't like, out comes the cussing from an in my opinion disappointingly limited vocabulary. I would focus more on learning how logic works, and afterwards maybe do something about your choice of words. I know kids who have barely passed their GCSEs who have better reasoning skills and who have already mastered the art of discussion without the need to resort to insult.
Humility is far harder to learn than arrogance, yet is far more beneficial for your continued development, and to me it appears you still have quite a lot of developing to do.
HoHoHo
Another pompous git on the horizon, false flagged as an anonymous coward
Whats up - refuse to use your real ID so that you can act as your own sock puppet?
When you're in a position to separate your posts from the herd, then I may just take you seriously
Until then, your anonymous opinion counts as much as a pile of stale pigeon droppings
"Interned for his views"
Sounds to me like you'd be happier living in ISIS rather than the UK. You see, liberties, such as freedom of speech, is one of the primary tenets we are fighting against absolutist ideologies such as those espoused by our (unofficial) enemy.
But, for fun, lets entertain the idea that having a radical opinion, one that criticises or even condemns the government du jour, or the broader idea of a society such as the UK as a whole, can get you imprisoned or even summarily executed (for the crime of having an unpopular view). Such a law, I'm sure you'd agree, would have to be proposed by the elected government of the nation in question, and would, no doubt, be reflective of that nations majority opinion. After all, we're not talking about some dictatorship or theocracy here, are we? We're talking about the UK.
So...a law gets passed whereby the majority opinion is paramount and critical, minority, even offensive opinions gets you a bullet to the back of the head, or imprisonment, or waterboarding or some other childish and unenlightened revenge. Why, I bet we could even make it automatic and remove legal representation on the basis of the legal status being "enemy combatant" rather than "criminal"!
*glances at the upvote/downvote ratio on your posts*
...It would appear that your opinion, strongly held and offensive to many people here, would be at odds with the sample majority. You are at odds with the majority, democratic opinion.
Guilty. Bang.
Do you not see this flaw in your argument, or are you going to simply rest on the idea of white/uk privilege ('cos this laws for THEM not US!).
Back to EDL land with you.
Sorry, Dan but it IS bullying (I can use CAPS too).
If I were in charge of an operation to exploit the journo's interviews to track jihadis, there is NO WAY I would have seized the laptop in a highly public way. It would be no problem to subvert it, with no-one being any the wiser. That could likely, as more jihadis trust the journo, lead me to even more targets.
You got it right (accidentally) when you sad "bad people ... need to find out the consequences" -- in other words that the confiscation of the laptop is effectively some form of summary extra-judicial punishment of which you approve. This is the truth of the matter, they are sending a message.
If you really believe that (a) they need the contents of the laptop and (b) that the only way they can get it is a highly public seizure, you are an even greater fool than your ridiculous posts suggest.
Well good news on this front. The PST lost their case and have had to return all the material to the film maker Ulrik Imtiaz Rolfsen. Still, he acknowledges might have problems completing the film as his sources may not wish to carry on working with him.
http://www.nrk.no/kultur/rolfsen-_-na-kan-jeg-fortsette-a-lage-film-1.12664113
I am curious as to when exactly we declared war on IS. Given the government's policy of referring to IS as the "so-called Islamic State" I suspect we haven't, as you can only declare war on another country. So, not enemy combatants then.
Criminals? Probably; although you have no evidence that the person interviewed is an active member of IS or merely a sympathiser. If talking to sympathisers was treason, then most of the current generation of politicians are guilty of treason for talking to the sympathisers of the PIRA, UDF and other organisations in order to secure the Good Friday agreement. If communicating with criminals is treason then there are a lot of traitors in this country; let's start shooting the ones who turn up at prison visiting time each week shall we?
I would actually like to hear interviews with these people, as I have often read, watched or listened to accounts from people on both sides of the government v freedom fighter/terrorist (which usually depnds on your point of view) to understand what their grievances are and maybe go some way to resolving them without resorting to carpet bombing, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I suspect I will find their views and their philosophy as repugnant as I find their actions, but hey!, let me make up my own mind; I don't want the government making it up for me.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Hold on, did you mean to say "he needs to be prosecuted, and the death penalty needs to be reintroduced" or do you really think extrajudicial execution is a good thing?"
I never mentioned extrajudicial killing. However I can see that under certain circumstances of warfare it could be necessary for certain categories of enemy sympathiser - essentially to encourage the others
This journalist was communicating with an enemy combatant. That counts as treason.
He needs prison. Or shooting.
Firstly, since ISIS is not a recognised state, technically its fighters are not legally 'enemy combatants'. Also, I'm pretty sure that there is no law that makes speaking to an enemy a treasonable offence. The logical conclusion of this viewpoint would be that anyone signing a peace treaty would be shot for it.
@adnim
That statement depends on congruence (All parties agree what is wrong). And as we are all different, we have much to fear from those who would have us consume, conform and obey.
True.
Oh wait! Is this sarcasm again? :p
No, seriously, this has been an entertaining rant! I never really noticed this Boltar person before...
As for the whole business, I'd probably consider this to be yet another example of why an unwritten constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" always assumes that the people prosecuting you have no evil intent.
How does that popular misquotation go?
Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
As much as I hate journalists in general, or at least those who think that half of the trash that appears in the tabloids somehow qualifies as news, I am grudgingly forced to recognise that a free press is indeed necessary in any country that aspires to call itself free and democratic.
If journalists are incriminated for not ratting out their sources then all that will happen is that nobody with anything worth saying will talk to the press, and what we'll get served to us is whatever the Ministry of Truth decides is a true and accurate account of world events.
"any country that aspires to call itself free and democratic."
I think you mean "any country that aspires to BE free and democratic." The USA calls itself free and democratic, is neither, and does not have a free press. Calling itself something does not mean that it is; witness the many "Democratic Republic of ...." which flourished under Soviet influence which were neither republics nor democratic.
I think if you bothered to read and comprehend the subject you will find that the USA is actually a REPUBLIC.
One that rejected the unjust rule of monarchists many years ago and were considered by those monarchists to be terrorists. Just like your government consider the IRA to be terrorists and did the very same things that you complain about now.
However, we did not decapitate or burn our captives alive (The British did even worse during the Revolution) and hide behind a so called religion to do so and that makes us better than ISIS or the IRA. The fact that some of our citizens supported Sinn Fein during those years only affects THOSE who supported them, not all citizens but you damn us all nonetheless. I don't damn all people of the middle east, only those in ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iran.
And I know that I am quite a bit freer than any of you Europeans who gave up freedom long ago for the false security of conformity.
'I don't damn all people of the middle east, only those in ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iran.'
Iran. You damn the best part of 80 million people purely because of where they were born? Apart from being racist and ignorant, that says rather a lot about how simplistic your world view is. You condemn an entire country, right after insisting that it's only some Americans who threw money at the IRA. Are you genuinely unable to see the hypocrisy there, or do you genuinely believe that Iran is wholly united against the US? If it's the latter, you really need to look at other media outlets than Faux News and Murdoch prolefeed.
This thread's been quite revealing, as it's been frighteningly easy to spot the stereotypical US world outlook of The Land Of The Free (TM) vs The Enemy(TM). Real world problems aren't as black-and-white as Hollywood likes to believe.
"The fact that some of our citizens supported Sinn Fein during those years only affects THOSE who supported them, not all citizens but you damn us all nonetheless."
Nothing to do with Sinn Fein, the support was for the IRA and was in large numbers, the fact you cannot even bring yourself to admit that speaks volumes really.
And thats before the meet and greets with likes of Gerry Adams and the rest of the IRA army council at the direct invitation of US senators.
Worth remembering that for many years Osama Bin Laden was also fighting the good fight with US funded weapons against the Russians and Saddam wasn't exactly hamstrung in the war with Iran either. But then, the Iranians didn't miss out either with lots of nice missiles shipped to them with a little light money laundering to fund the Contra's in Nicaragua all done via those peace loving Israelis.
The bottom line is that none of our countries have histories that are commendable when it comes to the funding or fighting of terrorism, trying to paint one as some kind of paragon of virtue only makes you look like a bit of a cockwomble Dan.
I've been to England, Switzerland, Germany and France as well as Mexico and Canada. More "traveled" than you would ever give credit for.
Particularly Germany and Alsace, where the people I've spoken to feel exactly the same as I do about "the Turks" invading their country.
No, I'm old enough to be your grandfather.
EXCEPT if I were your grandfather, I would have cut my own balls off with a rusty spoon for the shame of helping to bring you into the universe.
I already know that Dogged, H4m0ny, Fruitoftheloon, and many others are still living in mummies basement if they are not still underage.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it's failures. Growthefuckup!
"The issue there was that YOU BRITISH DELIBERATELY gave them no other choice but to revolt against PROTESTANT rule. In order to throw that rule off, your actions almost justified their attacks on civvies."
I note that you do not extend your assumption to the people of Palestine. Do you not see the direct comparison? Also, the issues of NI were resolved by talking to people, after the reporting embargo was lifted.
"No, I'm old enough to be your grandfather"
Then you should know better. When you've wiped the foaming spittle from your mouth go and take a good, long look in the mirror, consider your statements as a whole. Your words regarding Palestinians, reporters, Christians (of denominations other than yours) and atheists reveal a lack of tolerance and consideration for any ideas other than those you hold personally. The anger you display shows that you are rabidly defensive of them; a sure indicator that you know, in your heart, that they are wrong, false, and illogical. Even if not (and I am guessing here, to a degree) your faith in your own religion should surely tell you this kind of hatred you express for others is misguided. I suggest you head back to your church and seek some guidance on peace, understanding and the universality of humanity, because you have clearly lost your way somewhere along the line.
If this reply angers you, good. Let that anger seep in and understand where it comes from - it's anger generated by the understanding that your beliefs, held for so long, are not good ones. I had the same revelation many years ago. (Yes, I am old enough to be a grandfather to some here too, and I have never had a basement of any kind to live in.)
If you refuse that reflection, if you cannot see what's wrong with your arguments, then you need to realise that your selective hate is just the same as ISIS and, in my opinion, whilst that doesn't make you an islamist (whatever that is), it certainly makes you a fundamentalist.
.....and fundamentalism is *always* wrong.
At this rate, he'll wind up in China, and might even like it.
In all seriousness, this action can't afford to stand. This is a downright lethal precedent to set in the world today, for everyone's "freedom of association". For all the talk about trading between safety and free nowadays, it seems rather curious that no politician ever seems interested in allowing it the other way. Much easier to claim that any attempt to regain lost freedoms interferes with police interests anyways, and is therefore obstruction of justice.
I wonder if we have a valid case now to arrest anyone who decides to sign a petition against government corruption because that would lead to a reduction in policing power used to ensure government corruption, or some other such nonsensical drivel?
Such interesting times...
- Acrimonious Canadian
...please could we ban the phrase "known terrorist"? It's a useful indicator, in the sense that we can be sure that anyone who uses it is a complete twat - but it's an insidious use of the passive voice, translating roughly as "Someone with whom I agree has defined this person as a terrorist, and has by implication also defined the term terrorist to mean something which they have decided it means, and is now railroading any attempt at debate by presupposing that we all agree what a terrorist is, and that this person is one."
When I were a lad, back in the day when the IRA were doing proper terrorism, a "terrorist" was often defined as "Someone with a bomb, but no air force to deliver it." But now apparently it can be used to refer to someone with a machete and an off-meds bipolar disorder.
If you find yourself tempted to use the phrase "known terrorist" here, please would you be kind enough to clarify who knows this, and on what basis and definition of "terrorist" they have made this judgement?
Thankyou.
I find the extremists down south of (me/the rest of my country) are getting somewhat more intense in the ways and means of their extremism. Partly because they have an erection election coming up, and because of their internecine racial issues calling out things that make them uncomfortable in their skins.
Government for the people by the people was the idea, but now, unfortunately "the people", thanks to Citizens United, are the corporations. The corporations that *own* our southern neighbour's media, banks, food companies, transport companies, oil companies, and rather apparently the government in it's entirety.
"Journalism" comes in many flavours, and its quite apparent, to me at least, sitting up here in my igloo, feeding my sled dogs rejected american beef, burning oilsands pond scum, that many many journalists in the mainstream media are either enthusiastically supporting the "people", or are unfortunately subverted to the "people" that Citizens United created. Those few that do not toe the religious or political "line" painted by the Citizens United Peoples are not allowed into the mainstream and are often painted with the vituperative brush of "terrorist sympathiser" or "Feminist radical" or "Racial terrorist".
There are a couple of old world "news men" <sadly, they didn't have that many news women who could publish similarly> who've written books on the art of being a journalist in what is supposed to be a democratic society, and what it means to take the position of "respected journalist" seriously. Clearly - and more so every day - what we read in most media, even online, is coloured by not questioning the "line", or having swallowed the horseshit that is being, and has been spewed by american mainstream media, in all forms (entertainment, news, comedy, advertising) for at least 25 years.
For those few journalists who DO take their positions seriously we need to ensure that the "people" of Citizens United cannot buy, subvert, terrorize or otherwise suppress their alternate viewpoints.
While I'm certainly of the opinion that (IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) in Syria and Iraq is an organization that should not be allowed to succeed, one cannot completely suppress all contact with them. In fact, the position that "a journalist interviewing " a "terrorist" is in fact a terrorist sympathiser and "deserves to be shot" is something I'd rather expect from the IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh ruling class themselves, but this is the nature of extremism, in that one at the extreme cannot see itself.
Journalism should be keeping Enterprise, Government, Police and Judiciary in check, by being able to publish the cases where these elements of society are violating the rights of People, however when Enterprise owns Journalism, Police, Judiciary and Government, there is no chance of this happening. Sadly, social media <gag> gets more traction over here in getting the public to attend to issues of this nature, than do the media.
This episode simply underlines the largest set of problems in the world today. And folks like Boltar, x7, Dan Paul simply *cannot* see that they have already sacrificed themselves on the altar.
Journalism should be keeping Enterprise, Government, Police and Judiciary in check, by being able to publish the cases where these elements of society are violating the rights of People, however when Enterprise owns Journalism, Police, Judiciary and Government, there is no chance of this happening. Sadly, social media <gag> gets more traction over here in getting the public to attend to issues of this nature, than do the media.
And so, in one paragraph, a proper journalist shows how the art of journalism can condense issues down to their essence without losing anything essential in the process.
Yes, I called you a proper journalist. It is a difficult skill to reach a conclusion in spite of your own biases, and it takes effort and commitment to remain objective in the face of so much pressure to chose a "side" when there is in reality a wider palette of choices and positions. In effect, it is a skill to present a condensed version of the facts in such a way that you still leave the intelligent reader to draw their own conclusions.
Thank you.
I've never downvoted so many posts in my time here as a 'tard until reading this thread!
I agree with all who think journos and their sources should be protected. I'd also recommend those interested in the state of the Middle East watch this.
I found it utterly fascinating, wonder if he's still got his laptop?
SD
The impression I get is that the US contingent is putting up a fight because they know they're skating on thin ice ;-)
Nope - they crashed through the ice years ago. What you hear is the frantic knocking against the underside of the ice, trying to find a hole before the oxygen runs out..
While I'll concur that the thread is very long winded, there really isn't much shouting here - the issue (at least to me, if not to a few others) is quite simply that the action < government very publicly seizing a journalists data store under effectively trumped up "national security" rules > deeply and utterly offends some of us who have watched our human rights, our freedoms, and our controls on big government, global corporations, money hoards etc be constantly be niggled away based on ridiculous fearmongering by the puppets of big government, global corporations and money hoards.
I'm no spring chicken here, and I work in an industry that manipulates data for information. And I've seen what can be done with metadata feeds in a large pool, with sufficient computational resources. In fact I performance tune those resources. Please see my previous post in this thread - this one action is a signature of the demise of anything that remotely resembles freedom to some of us cranky old bastards. Sadly most of the shouting is coming from the wrong side of the issue.
If this debate scares you, contemplate what happens next if the event in the article becomes considered normal, acceptable and "right".
Are you really that much of a chicken shit coward that you can't even comment?
Do you cry real tears when someone says something you don't agree with?
Because this is one place where having a thick skin is de regere. Perhaps you should plug your ears and go back to hiding under the stairs.
And for the record, I don't care much about "popularity" as a measure of a persons worth.
When the government no longer trust the electorate, it is time for the electorate to remove the government.
No longer "of the people, by the people, for the people" it has been prostituted to become "by the powerful, for the powerful" Warmongers, corrupt bankers, on the take politicians, big Pharma, tax avoiders, arms dealers, and state sponsored terrorist supporters (hello CIA, NSA, State Department, FCO, MI5, IDF, AIPAC) we all know who you are. Not forgetting the died in the wool neocons, (Hello Yes go on kiddies) who haven't an original thought in their empty skulls and rely on Fox News (That's a joke in itself) the Daily Wail and the assorted gutter press.
All politicians (when they get into power) want to limit the spread of information that contradicts whatever current 'truth' they are espousing . They want ultimate control over journalists, not because they (politicians) want to do overtly bad things, its just they actually and fervently believe, they know best for us. Therein lies the huge danger of any kind of control by Govt or any bureaucracy on the information that gets through to the public. Better to have a few maverick journo's (phone tapping etc) than the nightmare of state controlled information.
As it is now officially the weekend, and I will not be responding any more to this thread, please accept an upvote and a virtual pint!
The only thing I would add is that media controlled by big business is almost as bad; in this respect the BBC is a rare thing, being state-owned but not state-controlled (although the Tories are working on it) and truly independent (it gets as many accusations from the left about being right-wing biased as it does from the right about being left-wing biased, suggesting it is, if not totally objective, at least biased to a fairly neutral standpoint).
We have to take your liberties away, so we can protect your liberties.
You stupid plebs just fail to see the bigger picture.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
We continue to take liberties away in our own country - but we can still continue to liberate people in other countries. Even when people in these countries don't want to be liberated.
And once we're done liberating these people, we can start taking their liberties away again.
What's important is that it it us who controls the amount of liberty. In a few years the entire world will be a semi-liberated blob. Nicely sedated.
You'll have the liberty to consume whatever you like, but you probably won't get away with shitting on the street.
Hopefully AI or Aliens will pose a real threat to mankind by then. Nothing appears to be more liberating than having gone through a period of real suffering. E.g. WWi and WWii.
After a period of suffering it'll feel nice to be liberated again.
We're constantly being told that we need to be feel free and happy that this bcomes a major concern.
I envy those who just don't give a shit and get on with life.
So let the powerful liberate you and than take it away over and over again. Just get on with life. Ignorance is bliss.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
