Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ahhh, no. The common and legal definition of terrorist wouldn't fit either Snowden or Wikileaks. Maybe Republicans would say that. I hope you aren't quoting Republicans again.
Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
- Status
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The common and legal definition of terrorist" is irrelevant
"Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American of Yemeni descent who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen by a drone airstrike ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama on 14 October 2011."
Same thing with the wars when Bush was in office. People were called 'traitors' and the like for opposing them. Imagine if they had the power to stifle dissent by labeling anyone standing in opposition an enemy of the state? That's the slippery slope you're invoking by silencing someone's free speech
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Some Government figures DID call the Occupy Week Street activists terrorists. Seriously. Not just a smear but an attempt to delegitimize them and everything they stood for.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
He's very confused. Perhaps he's been listening to Fix News for too long.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
If he didn't want to get airstriked he shouldn't have been "having dinner" with his al Queda family in a warzone.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LOL
In your post you first claim the right to change the meaning of the word "terrorist" then you quote Orwell who wrote some of his best works about the habit of authoritarian governments to do just that.
No matter how much you like to say it, Wikileaks are not terrorists and Nazis aren't like lesbians. Check your Merriam Webster dictionary. It's still valid.
Thanks for the laughs.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I "claim the right to change the meaning of the word "terrorist"?
No, I'm simply telling you that if a government wishes to label you as a terrorist, the "common and legal definition" won't mean a goddamn thing to them. They can legally stick you in a cage and throw away the key without a trial if they want, i.e. Guantanamo Bay. If you support taking someone's rights away just because the US government labels them a terrorist, you are an authoritarian. Your buddy SneekyNinja apparently believes it OK to murder American citizens for their association to terrorists. If you want to go down that slippery slope, those are the places it leads, just because you get offended when someone says something you don't like.
I agree Wikileaks are not terrorists. That's not what I said. Our opinion is irrelevant, whether they are or not is irrelevant. Politicians and entities within the government will still make the case that they are, and that's all it could take to eliminate rights;
"WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria" of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, King wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reviewed by CNET. He added: "WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States."
WikiLeaks as Terrorists?
"1. Declare WikiLeaks a terrorist organization. Move to freeze its assets and have the Pentagon's new Cyber Command shut it down.
2. Shut the site down. The U.S. should urge fellow NATO ally Iceland (which hosts the WikiLeaks website) to shut it down, and suggest that if they do not do so immediately our relations will suffer. Ditto for any other country that steps up to host the website.
3. Get Assange's passport pulled. The president needs to get on the phone with the Australians (who are eagerly awaiting our call) and ask them to pull WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s passport. Once he’s cornered and can no longer travel, they can find him and charge him with espionage. Then the president can ask the country he’s hiding in to extradite him to the United States and try him in a military tribunal.
4. Up the charges against Manning. We’ve had accused WikiLeaks leaker Army Specialist Pvt. Bradley Manning in custody since July. He's been charged with transferring classified data and “delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source." It's time to up the charges. Let's charge him and try him for treason. If he's found guilty, he should be executed."
Yes, WikiLeaks Is a Terrorist Organization and the Time to Act Is NOW
WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman as No10 warns of threat to national security
Republican wants WikiLeaks labeled as terrorist group
I have an idea. If you don't like nazi's, ignore them. I learned that in Kindergarten. Now if/when a nazi comes to your door threatening violence, sure, feel free to physically assault him all you want, you could probably make a good legal case for self defense in that instance. Aside from actually breaking the law, they have the right to say whatever they want.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ah, no. Wikileaks isn't a terrorist organization. Not by the legal definition and not by the common one. Wikileaks has not been declared one no matter what anybody including you say.
I had the feeling you were quoting some ridiculous authoritarian when you said that. As you like to say and I agree, a person can say whatever they like. They can look foolish when doing so.
And now you are telling me to ignore Nazis. Can you hear me laughing at you?
A peaceful protest would have been slaughtered by Hitler's Nazis. That's what Nazis do. That's what they would have done to the counter-protesters on Saturday if they had the power to do so and that's what the Nazi terrorist (I use the word correctly) did in Charlottesville when he plowed into a peaceful assembly with his car.
In any case, I'm not professing the desire to kill these US Nazis, I'm happy with what Antifa did in Charlottesville. When Nazis wanted to walk the streets carrying the symbol of 6 million dead jews along with the KKK wearing the symbols of Jim Crow, they were stopped. Nobody was hospitalized from the skirmishes, no property damage and the Nazis were sent home. Not before their true nature was revealed unfortunately. For some reason, you think their message was the same as a LGBT rights march. It wasn't. They weren't marching for human rights.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I just said in the post you quoted "I agree Wikileaks are not terrorists"
Obviously you don't agree with that, you think free speech should be eliminated if it offends you
The beliefs are irrelevant. If the law isn't being broken, you don't have the right to stifle free speech
Nazi Germany didn't have the right to free speech
What I think their message was is irrelevant. If no laws are being broken, it's none of my business what I think about their message. They can think whatever they want and I'm allowed to think whatever I want. Trying to control what people think is authoritarian
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you are confused about the constitutional right to free speech. It does not give people the right to give insult to others without receiving insult back. The constitutional right to free speech protects people from repression by government.
It's Nazis who disregarded agreed upon entry and exit paths to the park, making it impossible for the police to keep them separate from counter-protesters. The Nazis sought confrontation. It backfired on them when their actions were met with effective defense and caused the police to end their protest.
I'm not making this up. The captain of the Charlottesville police force said as much.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
I've already tried to explain to him that the Supreme Court already decided any speech intended to cause injury or a breach of the peace is NOT protected by the 1st...
But they're too busy getting off on their (purely percieved) self declared intelligence.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
so was hill v Colorado overturned or?
the hecklers veto.
it's literally the same excuse local governments used to try and stop civil rights marches.....yet here y'all are condoning it on this paltry bunch of morons.
the hecklers veto.
it's literally the same excuse local governments used to try and stop civil rights marches.....yet here y'all are condoning it on this paltry bunch of morons.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
heroically downplaying racism, profiles in courage here folks.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Charlottesville was because Democrats.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
are you, a statistics major, trying to argue against those numbers? I am saying racism is losing as it is destined to.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Continuing to cast pearls before swine, in the hope that someone actually thinks that a knowledge of economics might get us out of the economic mess we're in;
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/16/putting-an-end-to-the-rent-economy/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/16/putting-an-end-to-the-rent-economy/
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Are you intentionally retarded or does it just happen naturally?
I said if you don't want to get blown up then don't eat dinner with the head of an organization declared enemies of the state in the middle of a fucking warzone.
It's not murder, it's collateral damage.
And no, I don't agree with drone strikes at all in general (I think it breeds more extremists) but that was/is the policy of the day.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Doesn't apply in the situation on the ground in Charlottesville. Nazis and KKK created the violence by rejecting previously agreed upon plans that would have prevented contact between protesters and the general public.
You've asked this question several times and I ignored it because it only takes about two seconds to realize what I just said is true.
It does require getting information about the situation. That you would shit out your mouth this ridiculous claim tells me you are just beating your right wing libertarian tool's drum without really trying to get an answer.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
sure it does. the hecklers veto is the very thing you praised as an effective Antifa tactic earlier.
notice I haven't argued with you that the permitted protesters didn't stick to the police plan.
the question is of the intent of antifa, which was to shut it down bamn..... you agreed earlier and somehow now it's not applicable.
of course this intent precedes any plans that were or were not followed and of course this intent is likely the reason things didn't go according to plan.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nope, the Nazis and KKK created the disturbance. They had an agreed upon plan to enable the police to keep the two groups separate by defining a clear and defendable entry and exit path for the Nazis. Nazis and KKK chose to enter the park in other paths, which made it impossible for the police to keep the groups apart. This was intentional on the part of the knuckle dragging white supremacists who were itching for a fight. Antifa defended. Police shut down protest. Hecklers rule doesn't apply.
I posted a press conference by the chief of police a few posts back. He very clearly says the Nazi and KKK protesters deliberately broke with the safety plan.
The strategy used by Antifa held the Nazis in checkmate before anything else could happen, which it would have had the police not been able to exercise legal authority to shut the protest down. Brilliant and beautiful plan by Antifa.
We had a protest by the same fuckers in Portland Oregon in June, just days after one of their own killed two on a public train because they defended two girls from him. Despite tension and plenty of hot heads on both sides, the police kept the two groups separate and the hate mongers had their fucking speeches said. Clearly, the intent of the Nazis in this case was not to maintain a peaceful assembly. So it was shut down.
- Status