Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yet it specifies civilian groups. If 'group of persons' already cover that, why is it mentionned?

Perhaps you are reading something else, it does not specify civilian groups. It says "the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization."

So lets say a fascist organisation sends a letter bomb to a military base, this is not terrorism then because it is done for "elimination" rather than to make them a bit warier of opening the mail, and informing them of their presence.

So lets say a fascist organisation sends a letter bomb to a military base, this is not terrorism then because it is done for "elimination" rather than to make them a bit warier of opening the mail, and informing them of their presence.

Correct. Unless, as per your legal definition, sending bombs through the mail is defined as a criminal act (which I assume it is). You'll note that fascism isn't usually linked with bombing of military targets, but with pogroms targeting the populace.

Perhaps you are reading something else, it does not specify civilian groups.

''Including against civilians'' is a specification. Anyhow ; legal definitions aren't to be taken at face value, they don't necessarily render the totality of a meaning, and sometimes deviate it entirely. See ''legal prescription'' for exemple. As you said, the following part of the quote (I do have to cut somewhere) specified this :

' The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).''

Kovnik Obama wrote:
''Including civilians'' is a specification.

Is this you deliberately misunderstanding or can you not see the distinction between the description of who is the victim of the criminal act, and who the intended terror is directed at?
Seriously, read it again.

BTW your advocation of violence toward people asserting their basic human right of assembling in public could be construed as terrorism,

a criminal act, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in a group of persons or particular persons, to abstain from doing any act.

a criminal act, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in a group of persons or particular persons, to abstain from doing any act.

It's then lucky that International Law isn't really Law. I'll say it again, if that's your definition of terrorism, then fine, I'll terrorize the frak out of those fascists (or, more in line with what I said, I'll hope that judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence done toward fascists.)

If they get to be elected, then I'll sow terror like no tomorrow. Frak what judges say, or naive people on the internet : Sometimes you need to get dirty so that others can claim their nice moral pedestal.

@Kovnik

So here's what you've been saying throughout this thread:

1. These people are bad because they want to take away the rights of others.
2. Therefore they don't deserve rights.
3. Therefore we should take away their rights.
4. Anyone who disagrees with me is naive.

Your own argument could easily be applied to you.

the UNSC has quite a remit, but if you like heres UK law-

"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where the
*use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and the
*use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Frak what judges say, or naive people on the internet

because everyone who doesn't share your view is naive, or intellectually inferior. I've been posting here a week and I've already lost count of the number of times you've claimed another poster is less knowledgeable than yourself.

dæl wrote:the UNSC has quite a remit, but if you like heres UK law-

"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where the
*use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and the
*use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Frak what judges say, or naive people on the internet

because everyone who doesn't share your view is naive, or intellectually inferior. I've been posting here a week and I've already lost count of the number of times you've claimed another poster is less knowledgeable than yourself.

So that's another definition that doesn't take in account the military (or is so large because all wars are designed to use the threat of action to influence a government).

As far as the numbers of time I see people making dumb claims about stuff they clearly don't know anything about, well, I'd put the guess at 4-5 in the last week? You, Biccat, 'cultural theory' dude, and some other dude in the psychology thread? So you haven't tried very hard to keep count ...

Now on to serious stuff :

1. These people are bad because they want to take away the rights of others.
2. Therefore they don't deserve rights.
3. Therefore we should take away their rights.
4. Anyone who disagrees with me is naive.

Your own argument could easily be applied to you

A perfectly legitimate concern, but I would submit that no.

1. These people are bad because they will pretend to be part of the normal political process, in order to claim rights that enable them to take away the right of others, once they get sufficiently organised.
2. Therefore they don't deserve the rights associated with the normal political process, like political assembly (you can disagree with me that public assembly is a political action, that's another debate, and a perfectly valid one too)... you could include other political rights too, like voting, but that would be unfeasable...
3. Therefore we should take away those rights before they use them to subvert ours (and note, they want to subvert way more than just our right of assembly).
4. Anyone who doesn't realize that democracy isn't it's own defense, or beleive that it doesn't allow abuses, is naive.

So since I'm not running for office on this platform, than 1) doesn't apply to me. Since, up until now, I have shown responsible use of my right to assemble publicly, 2) doesn't apply to me. By implication, 3) or 4) are irrelevant.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
As far as the numbers of time I see people making dumb claims about stuff they clearly don't know anything about, well, I'd put the guess at 4-5 in the last week? You, Biccat, 'cultural theory' dude, and some other dude in the psychology thread? So you haven't tried very hard to keep count ...

Well I've done a quick count of just this thread and its 5

I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes

refer yourself to the political science school of Economy & Law, their model shows very well how democracy shouldn't imply allowing the tools for it's subversion. You'll have a theoritical model to back up what I thought was available to common sense.

Then you clearly know nothing about fascism.

If you had any clue about what fascism really is

(and the thinly veiled) naive people on the internet

In none of these instances did you attempt to educate or explain, simply to infer their lack of knowledge relative to yourself. I'm secure enough in my intellectual worth for this not to bother me, but the fact you trot this sentiment out so much is quite telling.


Back to the point.
You are basing all of your inferences on these people on how you think they will act, they did not have anything to do with the taking away of rights.

Also their views are a minuscule minority of the populous and present no threat, how under any circumstance could they? Are Muslims calling for Sharia Law to have their rights removed as well? Or militant Feminists? Or Communists?

Ideology is irrelevent. Closing it down would cause more harm than good, ergo it stays.

You are basing all of your inferences on these people on how you think they will act, they did not have anything to do with the taking away of rights.

Are Muslims calling for Sharia Law to have their rights removed as well? Or militant Feminists? Or Communists?

Yes. And I think it's perfectly advisable to take steps, even radical ones, to stop people who 1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area.

Also their views are a minuscule minority of the populous and present no threat, how under any circumstance could they?

And that's a lovely thing, it means I won't have to go kill fascists anytime soon. But you can't predict the entirety of the future based on what we know of the present, and shouldn't expect the majority of the population to always remain in their right minds. On top of things, with the average turn out at elections, you need far from 51% of the total electorate to elect officials.

Are Muslims calling for Sharia Law to have their rights removed as well? Or militant Feminists? Or Communists?

I know little of the Sharia Law. If it implies denying the right to life to those who disagree with the government, then yes. I doubt that's what militant feminists want (although, unrelated funny thing, I came across a military fascist lesbian while on Facebook a few days ago... yeah...) Communists, not as per the manifesto. You can have a debate as to whether or not possession is a basic human right, I think that if it's not one of the basic ones, it's still a pretty important one, and believe in its validity, but the debate is legitimate. What isn't is whether or not, once elected, communists should kill the bourgeoisie.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I know little of the Sharia Law. If it implies denying the right to life to those who disagree with the government, then yes.

Essentially, yes it does. But Muslims should still be able to petition for it, or speak for it, and so forth. With regard to freedom of speech issues, advocating anything else seems hypocritical. Now if they cross the line from advocating to implementation, they should have to face the law wherever the situation necessitates such action.

Essentially, yes it does. But Muslims should still be able to petition for it, or speak for it, and so forth. With regard to freedom of speech issues, advocating anything else seems hypocritical. Now if they cross the line from advocating to implementation, they should have to face the law wherever the situation necessitates such action.

Thanks. I guess I see some sort of inner contradiction in allowing people to run a political campaign on a project which is only going to get declared illegal once they have been given every tool necessary to enact it.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

Yeah Mel, the bloke basically said "freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with me, and if they don't I will silence them"

Sounds pretty fething "extreme" to me!

Extreme yes, but left? No. More like extreme right.

I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes

And you know nothing of what hate crimes are like in the real world.

Oh for feth sake's could you at least ask me where I think I put myself on the Left-Right scale? I'm right here!!!

And it's not as if the Right got the exclusive claim on political violence, Mel...

If any such thing exist I'm a radical centrist. My values are all over the place on the political spectrum.

My objection was the use of left as a stand-in for authoritarian.

Not how it was applied to you.

Melissia wrote:My objection was the use of left as a stand-in for authoritarian.

Not how it was applied to you.

Oh cool then, I apologize. You know that horrible feeling when your parents are talking about you as if you aren't there? Had one of those...

And you know nothing of what hate crimes are like in the real world.

Never been the target of one, or implicated in one. I would assume them to be as abject as rape, or any other of the gravest of offenses against the person. If there was a political party of would-be rapist, you would see me going ballistic over it in the same degree... But I would think that to be such a silly idea that it could never see the day... or at least I hope... Oh god now I have to make a google search just to make sure...

Well, considering you're advocating hate crime...

@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

Well this is going in loop, so it's starting to lose its fun... I guess I'll reiterate another time : In the event that a fascist government ( Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[3][9] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system.[10] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.[11] Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies.[12] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[13]-Wiki) gets elected, I will commit all sorts of things that are considered horrible in a normal situation. How do I draw the line? I don't know, I'll see how bad it gets. I'm sure that a lot of people under those circumstances would have wished for more severe actions to be taken before it gets there.

If this is my position toward an eventual fascist government, then I believe it is my responsibility to make sure things doesn't get there. Is it going to be judge as a crime, whether as violence against marching fascists, or against a fascist government? I dunno. Again, in the (very unlikely) event that this becomes an issue, I'll act, and then submit myself to the Law, once democracy as returned. If the populace would condemn me, I'll do my time. Some people are ready to act on their belief regardless of the opinion of the majority, and sometimes they are in the right.

@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

Yeah, I know. Honestly I have no clue how to put myself on the scale. I don't have any real, constant tendencies in my political values. You see me under a radical view now because of the issue we discuss.. Fascism is pretty much to me all that is horrible about humankind, all wrapped up in a tightly uniformed package. It's a stain on our scorecard, and there is no excuse whatsoever (IMO) not to attempt to wipe it clean.

Well this is going in loop, so it's starting to lose its fun... I guess I'll reiterate another time : In the event that a fascist government gets elected, I will commit all sorts of things that are considered horrible in a normal situation. How do I draw the line? I don't know, I'll see how bad it gets. I'm sure that a lot of people under those circumstances would have wished for more severe actions to be taken before it gets there.

If this is my position toward an eventual fascist government, then I believe it is my responsibility to make sure things doesn't get there. Is it going to be judge as a crime, whether as violence against marching fascists, or against a fascist government? I dunno. Again, in the (very unlikely) event that this becomes an issue, I'll act, and then submit myself to the Law, once democracy as returned. If the populace would condemn me, I'll do my time. Some people are ready to act on their belief regardless of the opinion of the majority, and sometimes they are in the right.

Cannot fault a word of that post, hell I'd join you in direct action against a despotic regime, but the point was the suspension of human rights for white supremacists based on the fact they might follow a historically pre prescribed notion of fascism. That's what I and I assume others have a problem with.

Fascism is pretty much to me all that is horrible about humankind, all wrapped up in a tightly uniformed package. It's a stain on our scorecard, and there is no excuse whatsoever (IMO) not to attempt to wipe it clean.

Absolutely, but you do this by education and integration, not by the removal of human rights.

Cannot fault a word of that post, hell I'd join you in direct action against a despotic regime, but the point was the suspension of human rights for white supremacists based on the fact they might follow a historically pre prescribed notion of fascism. That's what I and I assume others have a problem with.

White Supremacists are one thing. I wish it would be easier to enact laws making it impossible for those bastards to voice their opinions, but that can get pretty specific. Incitation to violence could be a crime (it is up here), but then White Supremacists would just find ways to skirt the Law, or would simply stop to make those claims in public, and would then use defamatory pamphlets instead.

Fascists is something else. Maybe this is why we didn't understand each other before. I guess its true, I have no clue that White Supremacists will use raids, pogroms, ultra-nationalism, etc... But in the case of a self-proclaimed fascist party, then yes, I have pretty good indications, because that's what being fascist is.

I oppose racism, and I find it very hard not to become violent when exposed to it, but until now I have always contained myself. Fascism is, like I said in the previous post, more than racism, and I can only say that I'm lucky that I've never met a Neo-Nazi

dæl wrote:

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

Sorry, but just to jump in...

Most left-wing political doctrines advocate (occasionally severe) limitations on personal liberty, even in advanced nations. How can such policies be enacted without oppression?

Albatross wrote:

dæl wrote:

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

Sorry, but just to jump in...

Most left-wing political doctrines advocate (occasionally severe) limitations on personal liberty, even in advanced nations. How can such policies be enacted without oppression?

I don't know of any limitations on personal freedom in socialism or communism in their ideological form, quite the opposite in fact, there seems much more freedom than in capitalism, which puts a price on information thus restricting it.

Albatross wrote:Most left-wing political doctrines advocate (occasionally severe) limitations on personal liberty, even in advanced nations. How can such policies be enacted without oppression?

So do most if not all extremist right wing political doctrines.

dæl wrote:@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They weren't true Communist Scotsmen, then?

Monster Rain wrote:

dæl wrote:@Kovnik Extreme centre, thats new.

@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They weren't true Communist Scotsmen, then?

Alas, I miss our wealth redistributing, hagis dealing friend.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

The group called the Nation of Islam are black supremacists. Despite the name, they actually have very little to do with any form of Islam, instead they basically wrote their own crazy little version of history that happened to crib a few terms and names from Islam, much the same way as Hitler stole some stuff from Christianity when coming up with his own Aryan inspired nonsense Positive Christianity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Before you decide to label me some sort of white supremacist, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

No, I think your comments make you quite unaware of privilege, which is something quite different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

treadhead1944 wrote:In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

Which comes back to status, which is a more complete look at haves & have nots, as it looks at money in the context of what really matters, how you are percieved by society and how this causes you to perceive yourself. So for the poor whites attacking black people, the point was to convince themselves that while they may be poor & looked down upon by the rest of the white folk, at least they're better than those black folk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

I think its a mistake to read Marxism as assuming what happens is a direct result of cynical manipulation by powerful elites. It's more that social and economic conditions tend to cause certain things. ie because the capitalist economy has made John poorer than most other people, he attempts to assert some kind of status for himself by putting a false racial divide between himself and black people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yes. And I think it's perfectly advisable to take steps, even radical ones, to stop people who 1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area.

So name the names. List all the people in your immediate area who are doing any of the following "1) claim allegiance to the political practice of paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, when they say that, if they would have power, they would 2) practice paramilitary violence, racial discrimination, pogroms, raids, denunciation, expansion, propaganda, exaltation of the leader's figure, and 3) when they take steps to assemble like-minded people on the public area". Then tell me exactly what steps, even radical ones, you are planning to take against this person.

Unless you can actually name a nazi/bigot/white supremacist that you are personally going to punch/send angry anonymous emails to/whatever, then otherwise it's going to be obvious that you're just another kid in love with political drama. I mean, unless you name names I think I might end up picturing you in a beret.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They really, really were communist. You simply cannot read a history of either regime and come away thinking they weren't a genuine attempt to put communist principals into practice.

One of the biggest issues with communist thought today is how lazily they just wrote off those two regimes as 'not really communism'. If there had been a genuine effort to address what happened, and reform communism with some kind of explanation for why it wouldn't happen again ('because now we're utterly committed to democracy and individual rights above all else' would maybe even suffice) then there might be some kind of legitimacy to modern communist thought. But a movement that just tries to ignore the utter failure of it's ideas in practice is basically doomed into irrelevance.

sebster wrote:

dæl wrote:@Melissa Unfortunately because of Stalin and Mao people believe that extreme left is authoritarian, they fail to take into account that these regimes were communist in name alone.

They really, really were communist. You simply cannot read a history of either regime and come away thinking they weren't a genuine attempt to put communist principals into practice.

One of the biggest issues with communist thought today is how lazily they just wrote off those two regimes as 'not really communism'. If there had been a genuine effort to address what happened, and reform communism with some kind of explanation for why it wouldn't happen again ('because now we're utterly committed to democracy and individual rights above all else' would maybe even suffice) then there might be some kind of legitimacy to modern communist thought. But a movement that just tries to ignore the utter failure of it's ideas in practice is basically doomed into irrelevance.

They made no attempt to reach communism, communism is a stateless being, neither Stalin or Mao would have ever advocated no state, neither gave public ownership of resources but instead state ownership, there was a distinctive political class. They weren't 'not really communist' they were nothing even similar or even an attempt to achieve such, they were a way of installing themselves as a new bourgeoisie.

One of my mates in Corps had a degree in Political science, and he told me that you basically chart the gak on a circle, and that's why extreme right and extreme left are more or less identical, but they still are left/right, they just meet in the middle.

Regards more moderate stuff, I think that the Labour party (centre left) use far sneakier propaganda techniques and sew discord with half truths and organised brainwashing than the Tories do (centre right), which Is why despite living in the labour heartland I am a staunch Tory and absolutely loathe "socialists"

The way that they basically spent 13 years brainwashing a generation speaks volumes. Pretty much all of my friends from the Boro seem to think that Cameron is "posh" and Miliband is a fething miner that lives on a council estate.

They are all rich, but the Labour party has managed to pull the wool over the general public's eyes. And you don't manage gak like that unless you did in on fething purpose!

Id rather vote for a posh bastard than someone equally posh who pretends he is "with it" frankly. I find it offensive that they think I am stupid enough to swallow it.

And more importantly.. I think the bloke in charge should have went to the best school in the country, not some brain dead fether who went to a gak school and spent his entire time there smoking.

mattyrm wrote:

Regards more moderate stuff, I think that the Labour party (centre left) use far sneakier propaganda techniques and sew discord with half truths and organised brainwashing than the Tories do (centre right), which Is why despite living in the labour heartland I am a staunch Tory and absolutely loathe "socialists"

The way that they basically spent 13 years brainwashing a generation speaks volumes. Pretty much all of my friends from the Boro seem to think that Cameron is "posh" and Miliband is a fething miner that lives on a council estate.

They are all rich, but the Labour party has managed to pull the wool over the general public's eyes. And you don't manage gak like that unless you did in on fething purpose!

I'm amused that you regard the Labour Party as centre-left.
They support government cuts, support privatisation of public services, their electoral strategy revolves around opposing everything the government does while supporting it ideologically.
Having said that, it is true that the tory cabinet are toffs, and should be despised as such. Blue bloods bleed red, and all that.