If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Inciting Terror
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, as the proposed law begins it's transit through the commons - Story - I was wondering...
How do you think this would be enforced?
What actually constitutes "incitement"?
Would Chrie Blairs comments about the palestinian bomber last year, fall under this law?
Is it actually workable?
How do you think this would be enforced?
What actually constitutes "incitement"?
Would Chrie Blairs comments about the palestinian bomber last year, fall under this law?
Is it actually workable?
0
Comments
It will be enforced in the usual way: the prosecution will ask for something, and the court will acquiesce.
I think "indirect incitement" will be very hard to prove and rushed laws are usually bad laws (see dangerous dogs act 1991). I think the spirit of the law is a commendable one, and we shouldn't tolerate extremists applauding acts of terror, spreading hatred and creating the atmosphere where it becomes acceptable for someone to choose to be a terrorist and then go target and murder civilians.
I can't decide if this is naive or stupid. I suspect the latter.
There is always some truth in the conspiracy theories. I don't think people who believe them are "nuts", I just don't think there is enough decent evidence to support a view that is not the orthodox in this case.
The leaders of the West can, do and have taken advantage of what's happened. I think the US Government could have prevented 9/11 (Clinton's intelligence certainly indicates so), but chose not to for political reasons. I don't think they did it though.
I am, however, prepared to concede that the CIA will have enough agents provocateur to make anything happen.
As for the last point, yes, I do think Zog wants power. Don't we all?
Sure, the CIA fucked a lot of things up. It does not a conspiracy make. This all powerful CIA seems to fuck loads of things up.
There is always some truth in the conspiracy theories? What a fatuous, moronic statement. David Icke believes that the world had been taken over by a race of reptiles called the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that some prominent people were in fact lizards, including George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, the Queen Mother, and Kris Kristofferson. Tell me what part of that conspiracy theory is true? Don't worry, I will tell you, none of it!
As for you duv, you can go join the rest of the mental sloths who can't tell the difference between quite real policy agendas which are domnstrably in action and a string of patented gibberish terms never once employed in any of my posts. You'll have to shop elsewhere for UFO's or ZOG's I'm afraid, not my cup of tea.
When it comes to murdering innocent civilians, your precious Israel has the market cornered on that score. Though I don't expect that you're all too well versed on that upsetting wrench in your routine apologetic either.
Though I strongly doubt anyone has done so, I am curious whether any of my detractors have ever bothered to read Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"?
Perhaps we'd have less incredulity and idiotic retorts of "conspiracy theory" if people bothered to see just how seriously Washington and its partners view the real objectives of their renewed militancy.
I repeat, I'm pretty convinced that Paul Burrell didn't kill Diana. He's done quite well as a result though...
The amount of thinking, arguing and evidence that went into that post is impressive.
:thumb:
So your theory is only applicable to decisions on behalf of nation states?
So Tony Blair and GWB are directly linked to the terrorist attacks then?
Don't think I ever said GWB or Blair had to give each individual order for the Intelligence services to conduct false flag operations. It comes with their long-existng remit.
You go right ahead and believe that nebulous boogeymen want to bomb us because they simply hate us, no matter how illogical it might be given that our governments will then use it as a pretext for bombing the next ME country to perdition. You prefer that fantasy to any effort at putting the matter into it much more logical context, so be it.
Be sure to check under your bed everynight for ol Al.
You implied that the people responsible were those who made the "geo-political decisions". I picked those two as the first step. So who gave the original order then?
Oh, and should I have included the UN too?
I'm sorry, did you expect me to take that comment seriously, when it's made by the man who seems to believe in a "marlboro-Man" type cartel runs the world and is behind the whole terrorism issue.
Erm... my views of "Al" are quite clear. Obviously not to you though.
Do you have an opinion on the questions I raised, or can I expect another rant about the PNAC/MIC/Man in the moon?
Compared to your post?
Sorry, did you make a point that was worth responding to?
Looked like a bunch of ad homs to me........
That absurd signature always reduces the value of your posts by about 75% so its hard to tell really.
i can see how preparing for and training for attacks could be enforced, though the incitment part couldn't, say you were pissed off at some politician and you said "fuck i just wish someone would blow his house up" would that be an arrestable offence...there's a ifne line to be treaded
is it not up to the judge or jury to decide what incitment is, i doubt there'd be a universal agreement on what constituted what imo?
sympathising with bombers is different than inciting them imo
nope don't think it would be workable...the police are not everywhere to hear everyone talk, and i doubt extremists will be having public rallies now because of this law