Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge [W:42]

[Chomsky]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

You forgot the beloved Mr. Putin. I've been to Russia and sampled their print-media/television/internet firsthand. Lol. There are good reasons why Westerners don't emigrate to Russia.

Ah yes, thank you for correcting my omission.

So we now have illustrious contemporary leadership association as described in my post above (Putin, Duterte, et al), and in environmental association have joined the very exclusive club of Syria and Nicaragua. We're keeping fine company these days.

I often speak of the "third-worlding" of Amarica, but often get chastised for it.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

You forgot the beloved Mr. Putin. I've been to Russia and sampled their print-media/television/internet firsthand. Lol. There are good reasons why Westerners don't emigrate to Russia.

Oh but media outlets like CNN and MSNBC are catching up fast !

24/7 tin hattery Russian collusion and obstruction nonsense.

The Today Show had Ezekeil Emanual on this morning, asking one of ObamaCare's principle architects for some ideas on lowering healthcare cost.
Lol !! Cant make this **** up.

 

[Nilly]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Thought they already did?

They do, but that doesn't mean we should lie down and let it become legal.

The problem is that many (most?) of these "lone wolf" attacks are being done by their own citizens - how do you declare war on your own citizens? That is the nasty problem of fighting "a war" against an ideology - we (the never wrong government?) know what is in your head (heart?) and thus we can arrest (or kill?) you (as an enemy of the state?) is not an easy sell.

Agreed. Very tough sell. Where do individual freedoms and rights stop, and crack down begin?

I've read several neighbors had reported one of the London attackers to authorities, using the process the UK created.

I believe his quote was, "I did my bit, and many others did their bit, but the authorities didn't do their bit".

Asymmetric warfare is difficult to defend. We the people are not rational tips of the spear to deal with these terrorists, yet without we the people, how do they get identified?

I agree completely. The thing is, when a threat comes from within, you have to consider that any govt power that can be levied against people based on someone's belief can be levied against you just as easily as it can be levied against Muslims.

That is why we do not allow discrimination based off of belief, because it's simply tyrannical. We should only take a measure against people based on their belief if you would be comfortable that measure being taken on you. If it doesn't pass that test, it doesn't belong in a free society.

We can't win this continuing the way we are now, that's for sure....So, what's the solution then? Hug a terrorist? Give up? Accept Islam? What?

On the contrary, from a death toll perspective islamic terrorism is 1/100th the issue that drink driving, or disease, or guns, or hunger are. We are fine with accepting that as a consequence of our freedom to bear arms, there will be deaths due to guns. I honestly believe that terrorism is a consequence of liberty, that eradicating terrorism would come at the cost to our own liberty (see: the OP). This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to reduce terrorism, or that it isn't a terrible thing, or that there is nothing that we can do. But we shouldn't be scared into giving up our liberties because of an overblown threat.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge [W:42

It makes more sense to monitor these morons as they chat it up online and zap them in the planning stages. If you are going to up government power then at least do so in a way that does some good.

No such thing as good when giving government more power.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

They do, but that doesn't mean we should lie down and let it become legal.





I agree completely. The thing is, when a threat comes from within, you have to consider that any govt power that can be levied against people based on someone's belief can be levied against you just as easily as it can be levied against Muslims.

That is why we do not allow discrimination based off of belief, because it's simply tyrannical. We should only take a measure against people based on their belief if you would be comfortable that measure being taken on you. If it doesn't pass that test, it doesn't belong in a free society.



On the contrary, from a death toll perspective islamic terrorism is 1/100th the issue that drink driving, or disease, or guns, or hunger are. We are fine with accepting that as a consequence of our freedom to bear arms, there will be deaths due to guns. I honestly believe that terrorism is a consequence of liberty, that eradicating terrorism would come at the cost to our own liberty (see: the OP). This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to reduce terrorism, or that it isn't a terrible thing, or that there is nothing that we can do. But we shouldn't be scared into giving up our liberties because of an overblown threat.

Islam asks for all its followers to submit absolutely to its religious and cultural docitrines
When it comes to Sharia , its not just about violence, its about the spread of a ideology that is incompatible with our Constitution and our values.

Islam is fundamentally mysoginystic, discriminatory and intolerant and yet the Left defends it any opportunity they get.

Without Obama and his very curious foreign polici iniatives and his pandering and outreach to the Muslim community the Left wouldnt be trying to minimize every terrorist attack

 

[Nilly]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Islam asks for all its followers to submit absolutely to its religious and cultural docitrines
When it comes to Sharia , its not just about violence, its about the spread of a ideology that is incompatible with our Constitution and our values.

Islam is fundamentally mysoginystic, discriminatory and intolerant and yet the Left defends it any opportunity they get.

Without Obama and his very curious foreign polici iniatives and his pandering and outreach to the Muslim community the Left wouldnt be trying to minimize every terrorist attack

Islam is a vile doctrine, but in a free society the way to overcome bad ideas is to come up with better ones, not to violate rights and ban people from coming in.

I have no fear of shariah law becoming the law of the land in the US because I know that we have checks and balances to prevent exactly that. Let them do their job instead of limiting our liberties.

And tell me how many people have died on US or European soil due to Islamic terrorism then tell how me how many people died due to toddlers (hint: Toddlers Killed More Americans than Terrorists in 2015) then tell me about minimization.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Islam is a vile doctrine, but in a free society the way to overcome bad ideas is to come up with better ones, not to violate rights and ban people from coming in.

I have no fear of shariah law becoming the law of the land in the US because I know that we have checks and balances to prevent exactly that. Let them do their job instead of limiting our liberties.

And tell me how many people have died on US or European soil due to Islamic terrorism then tell how me how many people died due to toddlers (hint: Toddlers Killed More Americans than Terrorists in 2015) then tell me about minimization.

I dont think there should be a ban either, but whether your a Conservative of Liberal I would think you would want to publicly oppose any ideology that contradicts Western vales. Values like tolerance and real diversity and individual liberty

We wouldnt be making light of these attacks, these people and their ideology if they were Neo-Nazi's or any other secular intolerant group, nor would we or other Nations be allowing them in and giving them visa's. The condemenation would be overwhelming, from all sides but thats nots whats happening.

Im serious, had HRC won the primary and the Presidency back in 2008, the Democrats wouldnt be pandering to Islam

 

[jonny5]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

It is not what I want.

As a socialist do you want the internet to be nationalized and used for social equality?

 

[William Rea]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

As a socialist do you want the internet to be nationalized and used for social equality?

Do I consider that the means of transmission would work better in the hands of a neutral owner? Probably but, I'd have to know what that was going to look like. I support net neutrality but, I don't consider that a particularly partisan position to take, do you?

Do I consider that it should be equitable in terms of access and that it can be used to equalise information imbalances? Yes, I probably do.

This is not the first time and not the only subject that I have found myself having a more 'libertarian' position than self labelling libertarians. It kind of reinforces my belief that libertarians are only really bothered about their own liberty and what liberties are important to them rather than the principle. Why don't they just stick with the conservative label if that is what they actually are going to behave like in reality.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Do I consider that the means of transmission would work better in the hands of a neutral owner? Probably but, I'd have to know what that was going to look like. I support net neutrality but, I don't consider that a particularly partisan position to take, do you?

Do I consider that it should be equitable in terms of access and that it can be used to equalise information imbalances? Yes, I probably do.

This is not the first time and not the only subject that I have found myself having a more 'libertarian' position than self labelling libertarians. It kind of reinforces my belief that libertarians are only really bothered about their own liberty and what liberties are important to them rather than the principle. Why don't they just stick with the conservative label if that is what they actually are going to behave like in reality.

But that is the principle. My own liberty. Youre just not taking the next step and see that this requires respecting the liberty of others as well.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

They do, but that doesn't mean we should lie down and let it become legal.





I agree completely. The thing is, when a threat comes from within, you have to consider that any govt power that can be levied against people based on someone's belief can be levied against you just as easily as it can be levied against Muslims.

That is why we do not allow discrimination based off of belief, because it's simply tyrannical. We should only take a measure against people based on their belief if you would be comfortable that measure being taken on you. If it doesn't pass that test, it doesn't belong in a free society.



On the contrary, from a death toll perspective islamic terrorism is 1/100th the issue that drink driving, or disease, or guns, or hunger are. We are fine with accepting that as a consequence of our freedom to bear arms, there will be deaths due to guns. I honestly believe that terrorism is a consequence of liberty, that eradicating terrorism would come at the cost to our own liberty (see: the OP). This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to reduce terrorism, or that it isn't a terrible thing, or that there is nothing that we can do. But we shouldn't be scared into giving up our liberties because of an overblown threat.

While we need to tread carefully for the reasons you gave - I am very concerned with slippery slopes - we must also resist the call to be blind to threat due to politically correct narratives.

If someone is deemed a threat, they need to be reported. Terrorist or anarchist. As it is, there is considerable encouragement and celebrity being granted to people because they are seen as hero's against the "man". That is a problem.

 

[j-mac]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

On the contrary, from a death toll perspective islamic terrorism is 1/100th the issue that drink driving, or disease, or guns, or hunger are.

Problem with this line of thinking is that 1. the radical islamic caliphate is not just some "perceived" threat...London, and Paris are just the latest in incidents that prove that as fact. 2. Alcohol distributors, the CDC, or gun manufactures are not at war with the world...Radical Islam is.

We are fine with accepting that as a consequence of our freedom to bear arms, there will be deaths due to guns.

Deaths do happen, however, guns are a tool, not an autonomous individual that acts on its own....The two are not comparable.

I honestly believe that terrorism is a consequence of liberty, that eradicating terrorism would come at the cost to our own liberty (see: the OP).

Liberty at its core is a 'live and let live' perspective...How in the heck is radical Islam a byproduct of that? In fact the only way you can come to that conclusion is lending credence to radical Islam's claim to subjugate you.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to reduce terrorism,

The radical's are not interested in negotiation...

...or that it isn't a terrible thing,

What? :shock: They are decapitating, crucifying, murdering children, and generally killing anyone who won't join their mindset....That isn't terrible?

or that there is nothing that we can do.

There is lots we can do, but we haven't committed to the fight...That's the point.

But we shouldn't be scared into giving up our liberties because of an overblown threat.

So, if I understand your stance correctly, we should just accept that innocent people shopping, or going to a game, or seeing a concert, should just accept that they could be killed doing such, and that is just the price of freedom? Nah, that's Bull if you ask me.

 

[Nilly]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

Problem with this line of thinking is that 1. the radical islamic caliphate is not just some "perceived" threat...London, and Paris are just the latest in incidents that prove that as fact. 2. Alcohol distributors, the CDC, or gun manufactures are not at war with the world...Radical Islam is.

Semantics and hysteria. Fact is the people running this 'war' (foreign Islamic terrorists) claimed fewer US citizens lives than toddlers did in 2015.

Deaths do happen, however, guns are a tool, not an autonomous individual that acts on its own....The two are not comparable.

Lol ok then then consider the toddlers, the mentally ill, the gangs, the police, the criminals.

All these people have killed more US citizens than foreign islamic terrorists.

Liberty at its core is a 'live and let live' perspective...How in the heck is radical Islam a byproduct of that? In fact the only way you can come to that conclusion is lending credence to radical Islam's claim to subjugate you.

Terrorism is a reaction to liberty.

The radical's are not interested in negotiation...

I didn't say negotiation.

What? :shock: They are decapitating, crucifying, murdering children, and generally killing anyone who won't join their mindset....That isn't terrible?

1. I said is still a terrible thing
2. They have murdered fewer children than US bombs in the last decade.

There is lots we can do, but we haven't committed to the fight...That's the point.

Because when we have committed it's worked so well. :roll:

So, if I understand your stance correctly, we should just accept that innocent people shopping, or going to a game, or seeing a concert, should just accept that they could be killed doing such, and that is just the price of freedom? Nah, that's Bull if you ask me.

No, we shouldn't accept it. But we shouldn't abandon our own principles due to hysteria, which we have done since '01 and continue to do so today.

And freedom does come at a price. It's why the fact that people use guns for bad doesn't mean freedom to bear arms should be invalidated. We should try to minimize that price but the price isn't worth the freedom itself.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terro

I don't think people should get too worried about this. If there are two qualities that outweigh Theresa May's authoritarian tendencies it's her incompetence and lack of courage. She wouldn't dare, and if she did, you can almost guarantee she'd eff it up, make a u-turn and then insist that that was what she intended the whole time. Add a lack of integrity to the list btw.