Islam, Free Speech, & the West

[4321lynx]

As far as I'm concerned people like that are far over the line.

He's aiding and abetting the enemy in times of war. The fact that the war is religious doesn't somehow change this basic fact.

If he actually is helping to recruit for Isis, how is it that he has not been arrested?

1.Because democracies, especially the Brits, carry their tolerance to extremes, sometimes ridiculous extremes?

2.Because letting him spout his poison and seeing who is listening to, or obeying him, makes it easy to keep tabs on them?

3.Can't think of any other reason.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, free speech is a tricky thing. But young muslims who go to Syria is easier. Don't let them back in.

 

[Togo]

On what grounds?

 

[barbos]

On what grounds?

Think of something.
Ideally of course they should be prosecuted for terrorism and sent to prison.

 

[Tigers!]

Even when the September 11 attack is included, the level of terrorism in the USA is close enough to nil that it isn't worth worrying about; You are statistically more likely to be killed by yourself than by terrorists if you live in the USA. And that was true before the 'war on terrorism'; That is is still true afterwards simply proves that the 'war' has successfully prevented a non-threat. Like scattering elephant repellent in your backyard, the 'war on terror' has eliminated a threat that was never there surprisingly effectively; But the same result could have been obtained a LOT more cheaply by simply not doing anything at all.

Pity we can't test those your hypothesis that doing nothing at all would have been cheaper.

 

[Tigers!]

The history of terrorism shows that the more 'hard line' the action taken against terrorist groups is, the more support those groups have. It is something that we saw in Northern Ireland, and that we can still see in the Israel/Palestine conflict - when the major power is ruthless in their use of force against terrorists and terrorist suspects, acts of terror tend to increase in both frequency and violence.

Re. Nth Ireland did the IRA essentially say they had had enough? If so it does no favours to your hypothesis that the more action against terrorists groups to their increasing support.

 

[bilby]

The history of terrorism shows that the more 'hard line' the action taken against terrorist groups is, the more support those groups have. It is something that we saw in Northern Ireland, and that we can still see in the Israel/Palestine conflict - when the major power is ruthless in their use of force against terrorists and terrorist suspects, acts of terror tend to increase in both frequency and violence.

Re. Nth Ireland did the IRA essentially say they had had enough? If so it does no favours to your hypothesis that the more action against terrorists groups to their increasing support.

Insofar as anyone said they had had enough in Northern Ireland, it was the UK government.

The IRA were apparently willing to compromise once the
RUC and the British Army stopped trying to win by force, and stopped supporting the likes of the UDF in their violence against Catholics. Of course it wasn't as simple as that - shelves of books have been written on the subject - but certainly it is wrong to characterise the peace accord as the IRA having had enough.

 

[Jokodo]

Wrong. Islamist terrorism has always been largely confined to the countries of the Mid East. If anything, deadly Islamist attacks on Western soil have become more common in the wake of the "War on Terror". The Madrid train bombings were 2004, the London underground bombings 2007. No comparable attacks by Islamist extremists happened anywhere in Europe or North America in the 10 years prior to 2001 (and beyond, but 10 years is enough for a fair comparison).

Where am I wrong? I want to lesson Jihadist activities in the US, where I live, because I'm anti getting killed. I think that killing Jihadist leaders and preventing them from having a base where they can plan sophisticated attacks will diminish future 9-11s in the US.

You're wrong in assuming an inflexible supply of Jihadist leaders (and attackers). Empirically, Jihadist attacks in the West have if anything increased after a concerted effort at "killing Jihadist leaders and preventing them from having a base where they can plan sophisticated attacks" was initiated. That's just a fact. You can accept the explanation that the way "killing Jihadist leaders etc." has been carried out has pissed off enough people to actually increase the supply of Jihadists, or you can attribute it to magic, but the facts remain what they are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow, did you look at your own link? In 2014, 13 Americans killed by Jihadists. Fewer in 2013. 9-11 had more than 3,000 dead - in one attack. I'll trade lone wolf attacks vs planned 9-11's anyday.

And where were the terrorist attacks before 9-11, before the war on terror? What I am saying is that 9-11 was a one off. You can't draw a trend (or lack thereof) from a single data point, just like you can't say "where is the financial system instability since Dodd-Frank was passed?"

It was a one-off only in the fact that it was on US soil rather than attacking Americans abroad.

- - - Updated - - -

If he actually is helping to recruit for Isis, how is it that he has not been arrested?

1.Because democracies, especially the Brits, carry their tolerance to extremes, sometimes ridiculous extremes?

2.Because letting him spout his poison and seeing who is listening to, or obeying him, makes it easy to keep tabs on them?

3.Can't think of any other reason.

4. Because it's very hard to prove that the front-line guys that stir up the hate are actually recruiting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, free speech is a tricky thing. But young muslims who go to Syria is easier. Don't let them back in.

On what grounds?

On what grounds?

Think of something.
Ideally of course they should be prosecuted for terrorism and sent to prison.

Terrorism? ISIS is engaged in atrocities but I haven't heard of reports of terrorism from them.

Rather, aiding the enemy in time of war.

- - - Updated - - -

The history of terrorism shows that the more 'hard line' the action taken against terrorist groups is, the more support those groups have. It is something that we saw in Northern Ireland, and that we can still see in the Israel/Palestine conflict - when the major power is ruthless in their use of force against terrorists and terrorist suspects, acts of terror tend to increase in both frequency and violence.

Re. Nth Ireland did the IRA essentially say they had had enough? If so it does no favours to your hypothesis that the more action against terrorists groups to their increasing support.

1) Terrorist groups tend to moderate over time as their members age.

2) The IRA lost the money that was driving the war.

 

[Togo]

2) The IRA lost the money that was driving the war.

???? What do you mean? Plenty of people in the US were still funding them.

The change of policy that drove the change was getting the moderates in NI to work with the moderates on the opposing side, rather than their own extremists. That involved dropping the tactic support for violence against 'terrorists' no behalf of the British government, dropping attempts to criminalise terrorist activities, and actively pushing for former terrorist leaders to gain real political power, alongside their more moderate compatriots. It wasn't quick, there were several problems along the way in terms of actually putting weapons 'beyond use', and many of those were never accounted for. But it does seem to be working.

The one thing that it wasn't was the terrorist IRA organisations simply deciding they couldn't be bothered to fight any more.

 

[braces_for_impact]

An article sparked some interest for me today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/recruiting-for-isis-60-minutes/

I can't imagine someone like Choudary in the U.S. I've followed his exploits for some time, and find him weasely and repugnant.

The Christians here (many of them anyway) are already deathly afraid of Islam; it shows in their end time "prophecies", their sermons, and their intolerance and hatred.

I'm very big into free speech, but guys like Choudary are inciting violence, and it seems a difficult tightrope to walk. I'm curious as to how our UK members assess such a situation.

If someone here was as open and loud as Choudary, I think there are many here that wouldn't be so tolerant as people have been for him there.

I'm curious as to what people feel the differences are between the UK and the US here...

So enlighten me guys, what do you think?

I think that you either have free speech, or you don't. Choudry is very clever to make sure he never publically encourages an individual to do anything illegal, so he's probably going to stay free. It's annoying, but it's better than the alternative.

I agree with this view. I think that if he gets out of line at all though by actually getting his hands dirty, then he's fair game. Free speech may mean you don't like what the other guy is saying sometimes. You may find it reprehensible, even despicable, but they have a right to say those things nevertheless.

 

[barbos]

I think that you either have free speech, or you don't. Choudry is very clever to make sure he never publically encourages an individual to do anything illegal, so he's probably going to stay free. It's annoying, but it's better than the alternative.

I agree with this view. I think that if he gets out of line at all though by actually getting his hands dirty, then he's fair game. Free speech may mean you don't like what the other guy is saying sometimes. You may find it reprehensible, even despicable, but they have a right to say those things nevertheless.

The whole thing of islamists and free speech/democracy is seriously ironic.
And in practice there is no free speech for other side, you can't really call their prophet what he really is and live without full time police protection. These people are maniacs.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The whole thing of islamists and free speech/democracy is seriously ironic.
And in practice there is no free speech for other side, you can't really call their prophet what he really is and live without full time police protection. These people are maniacs.

Or even practicing a different religion can get you accused of blasphemy and killed in the wrong place:

In the latest vigilante attack based on an accusation of blasphemy, a young Christian couple in Pakistan was beaten by a mob and then incinerated at a brick factory.

There have been multiple cases in recent years in which Pakistanis are accused — often with little or no evidence — of committing blasphemy against Islam.

The police officer in charge of the investigation, Inspector Maqbool Ahmed, says he was told by local residents that the couple was still alive when they were shoved into a brick kiln.

By then, the husband and wife, Sajjad and Saima "Shama" Massih, were severely injured, having being beaten up by a crowd that set upon them when reports circulated alleging that they had defiled Islam's sacred book, the Quran.

"Falsely accusing Christians of blasphemy has become a routine," says Francis, who heads Pakistan's Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement. "No false accuser has ever been punished. Such impunity has led to a surge of such incidents."

I'm in the Maher/Harris camp on this one...

aa

 

[barbos]

Or even practicing a different religion can get you accused of blasphemy and killed in the wrong place:

That goes without saying, but I meant West. You don't really have free speech when it comes to criticizing islam.