'Democracy' Never Meant What You Think It Means

[War_Blade]

I don't know all that much about British politics, but on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I assume you realize that the majority of those prisoners were either captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan or arrested in terrorism busts. Prisoners of war have no right to a speedy trial, and that is what they are, prisoners of war. Just as in WWI and WWII, when thousands of German prisoners were held in the U.S. Did they get a speedy "trial"?, of course not, they are prisoners of war. If you believe the hogwash that some of those people were arrested while they were on "vacation" in Afghanistan during the war with the Taliban, than I suggest you wait for the tooth fairy tonight as well. War is hell, and enemies cannot be allowed to return to the battle. That is what Guantanamo is all about.

If an american solder trying to defend his country gets captured, he gets tortured and beheaded. If a terrorist gets captured, he gets pampered. They are damn lucky they didn't get killed on spot. If you were captured 99.9999999999% of the time you were doing something you shouldn't be doing. I loved how you used the quote "War is Hell". I believe it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who said that, and he was god damn right. You fuck with the bull (America) and you get the god damn horns.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

Man, you are completely missing the point. What is wrong with the reign, and hand that is doing it? Fact that you live in democracy has made you (eventually) informed, educated, free minded, creative, so you can have possibility to think of this democracy as "Providing you illusion of certain freedom". It is just a nicer way to put the fact that you are not able to appreciate what you have. I mean, EVERY kind of organized society needs some set of rules and laws, and that in turn means that someone has to be on the top of the power pyramid. It is normal and obvious. People that have had first hand experience of living in dictatorship does not share your views.
This point of view also reveal that you sometimes look at society as something that has control over you, even if it is subjective thing, and certain loss of freedom is necessary because of personal differences of people living together as a part of the whole.

you wouldn't need a person at the top of a power pyramid if there were a country operating under a true moral relatavism as opposed toabsolute law

if a person underneath the legal age of sexual consent uses a fake ID to go into a bar, goes into the bar for the purpouse of having sex, and orgasms while having sex with somebody that's actually old enough to drink legally, then under moral relativism, the younger person is the one that has commited a crime because they lied about their age, but under american law, the older person has just commited the crime called "statutory rape" and having been lied to about the age of the younger person does not constitute "extenuating circumstances" because the younger person was not cronilogically old enough to make sexual dicisions, despite being psychologically old enough to be decieptive for the purpouse of reaching orgasm.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

If an american solder trying to defend his country gets captured, he gets tortured and beheaded. If a terrorist gets captured, he gets pampered. They are damn lucky they didn't get killed on spot. If you were captured 99.9999999999% of the time you were doing something you shouldn't be doing. I loved how you used the quote "War is Hell". I believe it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who said that, and he was god damn right. You fuck with the bull (America) and you get the god damn horns.

+1
i didn't even read the other posts in this thread, but i agree with this one

 

[Norsemaiden]

The recently passed law making the "glorification" of "terrorism" illegal is not worded in such a way as to specify terrorists who are not to be "glorified". As a result the law is ready and set to use against dissidents of any kind, merely for advocating some sort of violent protest, and it is also retrospective. The legislation is so badly worded that hypothetically the list of terrorist organisations include:

"Hereward the Wake
Robin Hood
Wat Tyler and the Peasants Revolt
Charles Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) and the Jacobite Rebellion
Michael Collins and, indeed, any prominant figure in the Irish Republican movement who advocated, supported or engaged in the "armed struggle".
Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress
Menachem Begin and the Irgun Tsvai Leuni
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and any of the 'founding fathers' of the United States of America

And indeed just about any armed resistance movement in history"

http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost...tchedness_that_glory_bri&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

But you should vote for the party that made this Orwellian law or else for one of the very similar parties who don't intend even to repeal it. That is so much braver and more responsible than registering your disgust and refusing to give them your sanction.

 

[Keltoi]

The recently passed law making the "glorification" of "terrorism" illegal is not worded in such a way as to specify terrorists who are not to be "glorified". As a result the law is ready and set to use against dissidents of any kind, merely for advocating some sort of violent protest, and it is also retrospective. The legislation is so badly worded that hypothetically the list of terrorist organisations include:

"Hereward the Wake
Robin Hood
Wat Tyler and the Peasants Revolt
Charles Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) and the Jacobite Rebellion
Michael Collins and, indeed, any prominant figure in the Irish Republican movement who advocated, supported or engaged in the "armed struggle".
Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress
Menachem Begin and the Irgun Tsvai Leuni
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and any of the 'founding fathers' of the United States of America

And indeed just about any armed resistance movement in history"

http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost...tchedness_that_glory_bri&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

But you should vote for the party that made this Orwellian law or else for one of the very similar parties who don't intend even to repeal it. That is so much braver and more responsible than registering your disgust and refusing to give them your sanction.

You do realize that the majority of the people you mentioned were in fact guilty of crimes and terrorism. Nelson Mandela was arrested for trying to blow up a train. Were the things some of them were fighting for just? Probably, doesn't change the fact they were in fact guilty of murder and terrorism in many instances.
You also mentioned the various anti-terrorism laws being passed lately. The "glorification" law in particular is very important. There are many extremist clerics in London and elsewhere who constantly glorify "martyrdom" and incite violence against the West. Is this form of speech protected? Of course not. Political opinions are one thing, but when you actively preach hatred and violence against the people who have welcomed you(knowingly or un-knowingly)into their countries, then your speech rights are suspect. Terrorism is a dangerous and difficult phenomena to counter. Some laws may go too far, but this is a learning curve, to the find the balance between security and civil protections.

 

[Norsemaiden]

One can only feel contented with such laws if you have a total trust that your government is motivated entirely to serve the best interests of the people (not for their own financial gain or serving any hidden agenda or bowing to any corporate demands). Also you must be convinced that it is going to stay that way in the long term. You must feel that the government is not promoting any policy or helping any group within society in such a way that it could ever be what you perceive as being detrimental to the quality of life in a seriously threatening way.

And you must feel that anyone who could ever criticise the establishment, or strongly disapprove of the activities of any (state) protected group within society to the extent that they would condone violence by others against either state property or people, deserves to be prosecuted.

Indeed people like Nelson Mandela were terrorists - the point is that this very government that has enacted this law against the "glorification of terrorism" is overflowing with the very people who supported the terrorism of the ANC! Many of them supported the aims of the IRA and were fans of Che Guavara, etc. This shows the hypocrisy of such people passing such a law.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

you wouldn't need a person at the top of a power pyramid if there were a country operating under a true moral relatavism as opposed toabsolute law

if a person underneath the legal age of sexual consent uses a fake ID to go into a bar, goes into the bar for the purpouse of having sex, and orgasms while having sex with somebody that's actually old enough to drink legally, then under moral relativism, the younger person is the one that has commited a crime because they lied about their age, but under american law, the older person has just commited the crime called "statutory rape" and having been lied to about the age of the younger person does not constitute "extenuating circumstances" because the younger person was not cronilogically old enough to make sexual dicisions, despite being psychologically old enough to be decieptive for the purpouse of reaching orgasm.

when Abe Lincoln created income tax (to pay for the noth to have the clothes, blankets, fire-starters, weopons and food that was neccassary to defeat the south) he was doing something that the presidents before him were simply not cappable of doing, before Lincoln, the president of USA was little more than a gopher-boy for Congress, we should return to that

 

[infoterror]

You must feel that the government is not promoting any policy or helping any group within society in such a way that it could ever be what you perceive as being detrimental to the quality of life in a seriously threatening way.

One reason I distrust democracy: most people don't understand anything beyond their own convenience. They will thus always vote for the selfish, the impractical, the delusional... and bring society to ruin.

As they have.

Global warming just "snuck up on us"? I don't believe that for a second. No one cared to think about it in advance.

 

[Keltoi]

Completely off topic, but since it was mentioned above, if global warming is a condition caused by man, then why did the ice age end? Seems a valid question if one considers the possibility that the Earth does go through cycles of heat and cold.

 

[infoterror]

Completely off topic, but since it was mentioned above, if global warming is a condition caused by man, then why did the ice age end? Seems a valid question if one considers the possibility that the Earth does go through cycles of heat and cold.

Global warming/climate change is one of many man-made conditions.

Simple answer: many things can cause climactic fluctuations. Some are natural, some are brought on by human carbon emissions, and some are both.

All three screw things up just the same!

BACK TO REALITY PLZ

 

[kmik]

These symbols serve to obscure the actual mechanisms of governance, which are no different than those of any totalitarian regime.

Can you please elaborate on that?