Support NeoGAF

[Beefy]

But I am guessing to get on that list they have done a bit more then press a like button on Facebook showing sympathy with terrorists. So maybe ties to those organizations should be more easily punishable. Really difficult to judge though, since we don't know the exact details of why they are being watched and what they have done.

And then there is the question of what to do with them. Locking them up for a few years will probably not fix their radicalization.

Damn impossible situation to make good solutions for really.

The problem is you can't lock up a person that hasn't committed a crime or you haven't got enough evidence they have. I have been watched and questioned before about gang related activity,because of a few people I hanged around with. Didn't even know they were part of gang.

 

[TTOOLL]

Well yeah you said it yourself. Bombing and running over people is obviously wrong. But your beliefs can't be criminally charged. Opening that door is dangerous as hell.

I mean all of us have some form of extremist view.
Once you take the lid off that pot you open the possibilities of being imprisoned for anything that opposes the views of whoever is in charge.

Can you imagine being arrested for being an extreme capitalist in a socialist country for instance?

Opening that can of worms is extremely dangerous.
This people are under surveillance so as soon as they do anything that holds a criminal charge we can move in. But penalising beliefs is not at all the way to go.

In my educated opinion of course.

If your belief is to kill people who think differently why should it be respeced? We can't keep making false equivalences here.

Should we ban Islam? Hell no!
Should we hunt down radical muslins who openly talk about killing infidels? Definitely. That can't be acceptable as just another belief.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You only say that because it's not you or your family being locked up 'just in case'

You only say *that* because your kids haven't been killed by someone the government already knew was a risk

 

[Beefy]

If your belief is to kill people who think differently why should it be respeced? We can't keep making false equivalences here.

Should we ban Islam? Hell no!
Should we hunt down radical muslins who openly talk about killing infidels? Definitely. That can't be acceptable as just another belief.

How about people that talk about killing Muslims/ blacks etc? Are we going to hunt them down as well?

 

[Ashes]

If your belief is to kill people who think differently why should it be respeced? We can't keep making false equivalences here.

Should we ban Islam? Hell no!
Should we hunt down radical muslins who openly talk about killing infidels? Definitely. That can't be acceptable as just another belief.

The law has been changed to reflect that I believe.

 

[SyenceLabb]

Someone with exteme islamist views could be someone who chatted on a forum. It's such a broad net

You says the society is too tolerant, too soft, because they don't act aggressively enough. I used to think that way, when I was younger, but I came to understand that integration and support is the only true counter.

Read about the efforts of this Denmark city. People don't just switch to extremist views or actions one day, it's like the old "frog in a boiling pot" adage. It's a slow cumulative thing.

So the little girl in class is the reason he became a terrorist?

 

[RangerX]

Tell the parents of the innocent victims who were murdered that their children are dead because their civil rights mattered less than those of the suspected terrorists

You can't arrest someone before they've broken any laws unless your advocating an authoritarian police state. It's not illegal to look at a website.

 

[daviyoung]

How about people that talk about killing Muslims/ blacks etc? Are we going to hunt them down as well?

yes?

 

[Jindrax]

If your belief is to kill people who think differently why should it be respeced? We can't keep making false equivalences here.

Should we ban Islam? Hell no!
Should we hunt down radical muslins who openly talk about killing infidels? Definitely. That can't be acceptable as just another belief.

I'll repeat myself, again. Where are you give to draw the line when making someone's belief illegal.

Radical Muslim illegal. Okay. What about redical communism? What if I'm a radial white supremacist? And I want all black people dead?

What if I believe in old school an eye for an eye penal law. What if I want rapists shot dead ?

Actually try and think about the implications of such a system. There's barely any legal system in the western world that sanctions someone's beliefs or even thoughts. Because it's too dangerous.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

How about people that talk about killing Muslims/ blacks etc? Are we going to hunt them down as well?

Oh Beefy, you won't get any reasonable answer from this Trump loving, right-wing nutter that doesn't scream some kind of anti-Muslim rhetoric using UKIP coded language.

 

[PdotMichael]

You can't arrest someone before they've broken any laws unless your advocating an authoritarian police state. It's not illegal to look at a website.

Having a law in action that forbids being part of a subversive organistation isn't really constitution breaking, so that's the next step.

 

[Keasar]

Fucking hell.... 6 dead, so many injured. Turns out it was a coordinated attack in the end. My condolences to anyone affected.

 

[DasPenguin]

If your belief is to kill people who think differently why should it be respeced? We can't keep making false equivalences here.

Should we ban Islam? Hell no!
Should we hunt down radical muslins who openly talk about killing infidels? Definitely. That can't be acceptable as just another belief.

You conveniently jumped overt the answer to your "who is bombing whom" question. Have you ever considered politics as a career choice?

And you are not really participating in the discussion, when you ignore all the answers you don't like.

 

[cpp_is_king]

You can't arrest someone before they've broken any laws unless your advocating an authoritarian police state. It's not illegal to look at a website.

What if that website contains child porn?

 

[Theonik]

If your belief is to kill people who think differently why should it be respeced? We can't keep making false equivalences here.

Should we ban Islam? Hell no!
Should we hunt down radical muslins who openly talk about killing infidels? Definitely. That can't be acceptable as just another belief.

🤔

 

[TTOOLL]

How about people that talk about killing Muslims/ blacks etc? Are we going to hunt them down as well?

Of course! No organization like that should be tolerated either.

We're not talking about individuals here though. Let's not act as these are isolated cases. It's not Minority Report.

 

[ittoryu]

Having a law in action that forbids being part of a subversive organistation isn't really constitution breaking, so that's the next step.

How do you define "being part of a subversive organisation"?
Does the above apply also in countries where people *have* to be part of such organisations or they will get killed by the secret police/mad dictator of their country?
Who keeps a list of members of such organisation?

I understand the frustration and rage, but some of the suggestions are a bit out of touch really.

 

[RangerX]

Having a law in action that forbids being part of a subversive organistation isn't really constitution breaking, so that's the next step.

Clicking on a website a few times doesn't make you part of an organisation.Its a very slippery slope if you go down that road. Government will exploit and abuse that power. That's also one of the major problems here. There is no structured organisation like the IRA. It's people latching onto an idea and deciding to kill others.

 

[TTOOLL]

Oh Beefy, you won't get any reasonable answer from this Trump loving, right-wing nutter that doesn't scream some kind of anti-Muslim rhetoric using UKIP coded language.

It's nice to accept and listen to different opinions. Thank you for attacking me and not participating in the discussion.

 

[Ashes]

You only say *that* because your kids haven't been killed by someone the government already knew was a risk

Yes. But I have had bottles thrown at me in the past week.* By racists who also threw bananas too.

I was on the road five ten minutes away from where this was happening. Trying to figure out how to get home last night.

I also saw the dead and mutilated being carried into my local hospital after some fucker blew up a bomb near my local train station during 7/7. Yeah I saw plenty of my own die.

But you're right, it's not my kid who died in Manchester.

*Friday before last..

 

[pigeon interrupted]

Fucking hell.... 6 dead, so many injured. Turns out it was a coordinated attack in the end. My condolences to anyone affected.

Seven dead now

 

[PdotMichael]

Clicking on a website a few times doesn't make you part of an organisation.Its a very slippery slope if you go down that road. Government will exploit and abuse that power. That's also one of the major problems here. There is no structured organisation like the IRA. It's people latching onto an idea and deciding to kill others.

Good, that the recent terrorists did more than just clicking on some websites.

But we should do nothing and maybe provide the extremists with some extra hugs.

 

[MUnited83]

It's nice to accept and listen to different opinions. Thank you for attacking me and not participating in the discussion.

Considering you are a climate change denier, I find it hard to believe you have any opinion worth listening to, especially since you seem to completely love ignoring facts.

 

[RangerX]

What if that website contains child porn?

We have laws against child porn. It's not illegal to hold a political ideology and if you think it should be made illegal then that's advocating pure authoritarianism. Giving the government the power to dictate what people can believe is too far.Community engagement and policing is the best method to tackle extremism.

 

[Ashes]

We have laws against child porn. It's not illegal to hold a political ideology and if you think it should be made illegal then that's advocating pure authoritarianism. Giving the government the power to dictate what people can believe is too far.Community engagement and policing is the best method to tackle extremism.

Isis recruitment is illegal I think.

 

[TTOOLL]

Considering you are a climate change denier, I find it hard to believe you have any opinion worth listening to, especially since you seem to completely love ignoring facts.

Oh man, don't fucking lie. Let's not derail the thread. I just said there are scientists who don't think climate change is a big deal as others do. I didn't say I deny it.

 

[holygeesus]

The press sensationalism certainly doesn't help, with rolling coverage and requests for interviews/footage. They perpetuate the fear that this is an escalating issue that has to be cracked down on with violent retribution, because said retribution is good for ratings as well, of course, when the truth is - Terrorism has always been here, will always be here. It needs to be managed like any other crime, through proper organisation and funding.

 

[Theonik]

Good, that the recent terrorists did more than just clicking on some websites.

But we should do nothing and maybe provide the extremists with some extra hugs.

Most of them did not. Once intelligence services are convinced that there is a credible threat that the suspects can be detained, then arrests are made. Only thing you could do to detain them before that would be if you amended your legislation to make it illegal to have certain types of views and I hope I don't have to point out what sort of can of worms this can be.

 

[ClosingADoor]

We have laws against child porn. It's not illegal to hold a political ideology and if you think it should be made illegal then that's advocating pure authoritarianism. Giving the government the power to dictate what people can believe is too far.Community engagement and policing is the best method to tackle extremism.

Depends a bit. For example, if that political ideology is that people need to be killed, then that would certainly be illegal to spread around under hate speech laws in a lot of countries.

Does visiting a website proof you support those views? That link can not be made straight away. The person would need to make those calls themselves and it needs to be proven.

 

[RangerX]

Good, that the recent terrorists did more than just clicking on some websites.

But we should do nothing and maybe provide the extremists with some extra hugs.

What is it your actually suggesting should be done? Your being very vague. Until they have committed a crime you can't arrest them, just keep an eye on suspicious individuals which is difficult with the limited resources after Tory cuts. Do you think people should be arrested for looking at extremist material online, yes or no?

 

[cpp_is_king]

We have laws against child porn. It's not illegal to hold a political ideology and if you think it should be made illegal then that's advocating pure authoritarianism. Giving the government the power to dictate what people can believe is too far.Community engagement and policing is the best method to tackle extremism.

I'm not talking about dictating beliefs, I'm talking about specific laws against viewing terrorist propaganda. If you can make it illegal to view child porn, you can certainly make it illegal to view terrorist propaganda

 

[More_Badass]

Good, that the recent terrorists did more than just clicking on some websites.

But we should do nothing and maybe provide the extremists with some extra hugs.

You mock that notion, but providing support and interventions for radicalized people coming back from Syria and other places is one of the more effective options.

 

[MUnited83]

Oh man, don't fucking lie. Let's not derail the thread. I just said there are scientists who don't think climate change is a big deal as others do. I didn't say I deny it.

No, you posted that you "didn't know, i'm not an expert", despite being horrifingly easy to see how absurdly wrong you are, and use "some scientists disagree" to try to defend yourself, when the facts are that 99.9999% of the scientic community agrees on it.

 

[DasPenguin]

Oh man, don't fucking lie. Let's not derail the thread. I just said there are scientists who don't think climate change is a big deal as others do. I didn't say I deny it.

Scientists that are not paid by the oil companies and such? Those are the people who always appear on American tv.

And again, for someone who likes to discuss things you sure ignore a lot of the answers that don't fit your thinking.

 

[KingSnake]

We have laws against child porn. It's not illegal to hold a political ideology and if you think it should be made illegal then that's advocating pure authoritarianism. Giving the government the power to dictate what people can believe is too far.Community engagement and policing is the best method to tackle extremism.

I would say that the same laws can exist for websites that host terrorist propaganda.

 

[PdotMichael]

You mock that notion, but providing support and interventions for radicalized people coming back from Syria and other places is one of the more effective options.

You would still need laws in action to do that. Doing nothing to people who went to North Africa or the ME to receive further radicalization and training isn't effective at all.

 

[ittoryu]

I'm not talking about dictating beliefs, I'm talking about specific laws against viewing terrorist propaganda. If you can make it illegal to view child porn, you can certainly make it illegal to view terrorist propaganda

How do you keep a list of what you consider "terrorist propaganda"? How are you updating such list? What does get flagged as "terrorist"? Where is the limit of what can be considered as "terrorist"?
I hope you do realise that you are suggesting the impossible.

 

[Ashes]

I would say that the same laws can exist for websites that host terrorist propaganda.

What about Facebook?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Police make desperate statement following London attacks

https://twitter.com/el4jc/status/871334312221736960

Well, considering the election is in 4 days, I wonder how much of an impact this will be

 

[Breakage]

You only say *that* because your kids haven't been killed by someone the government already knew was a risk

Honestly these days it feels like we care more about the human rights of people plotting mass murder than people's right to go about their day without the fear of being killed or maimed in a terror attack. These terrorists are exploiting political correctness, tolerance and an ever-expanding doctrine of human rights to plot death and destruction. It almost feels as if we authoring our own demise by protecting these people with our "principles". Where's the deterrent? You go to train with ISIS and it seems you can return with no problems. You associate with fellow plotters and what happens? You get put on a watch list. Only in the aftermath of the terror attack everyone is swiftly arrested in raids - despite not executing the attacks themselves. These guys are laughing at us and the easy ways they can exploit our liberal tolerance.

 

[RangerX]

I'm not talking about dictating beliefs, I'm talking about specific laws against viewing terrorist propaganda. If you can make it illegal to view child porn, you can certainly make it illegal to view terrorist propaganda

The problem then is the government deciding that other views are dangerous. Claiming far left anarchists are involved in sedition or censoring pro Palestinian groups for criticising Israel. Freedom of thought is too important to be controlled by government. Once the police believe there is any credible possibility of an attack taking place they will arrest the individuals. Unfortunately you can't get inside someone's head or monitor every group of people plotting an attack if they're not on your radar.

 

[TTOOLL]

The press sensationalism certainly doesn't help, with rolling coverage and requests for interviews/footage. They perpetuate the fear that this is an escalating issue that has to be cracked down on with violent retribution, because said retribution is good for ratings as well, of course, when the truth is - Terrorism has always been here, will always be here. It needs to be managed like any other crime, through proper organisation and funding.

Sorry, but I refuse to accept this idea. Do I need to make a list of places which are not subject to frequent terrorist attacks? It just can't be taken as any other crime, it's not.

 

[cpp_is_king]

How do you keep a list of what you consider "terrorist propaganda"? How are you updating such list? What does get flagged as "terrorist"? Where is the limit of what can be considered as "terrorist"?
I hope you do realise that you are suggesting the impossible.

How do you keep a list of what websites constitute child porn? Oh wait, you don't. And yet there are still laws about it.

It opens a new avenue for obtaining probable cause, which can lead to warrants and searches, and when you find the material, you arrest them. It's that simple.

All the people on the government lists, they're there for a reason. The activity that got them put on the list could likely have been used as probable cause for a warrant if viewing terrorist propaganda were illegal.

 

[Beefy]

You mock that notion, but providing support and interventions for radicalized people coming back from Syria and other places is one of the more effective options.

Can the title be updated to 7 dead please?

 

[MistakenMobius]

The problem then is the government deciding that other views are dangerous. Claiming far left anarchists are involved in sedition or censoring pro Palestinian groups for criticising Israel. Freedom of thought is too important to be controlled by government. Once the police believe there is any credible possibility of an attack taking place they will arrest the individuals. Unfortunately you can't get inside someone's head or monitor every group of people plotting an attack if they're not on your radar.

In France it's illegal to support nazi ideology and you can go to jail for this.
The very same for racial hatred incitation.
It should be quite easy in the French system to add support for additional hate ideology

 

[Auraela]

Rolling on the convo

Say someone came out and said they support child porn and general other things like that. Would be instant lock up

If someone said they support isis and love all the shit they do and love the attacks and support them going forward. Guess what no lock up

 

[ittoryu]

How do you keep a list of what websites constitute child porn? Oh wait, you don't. And yet there are still laws about it.

It opens a new avenue for obtaining probable cause, which can lead to warrants and searches, and when you find the material, you arrest them. It's that simple.

All the people on the government lists, they're there for a reason. The activity that got them put on the list could likely have been used as probable cause for a warrant if viewing terrorist propaganda were illegal.

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just rush to post?

Can you explain to me how do you define "terrorist website"? How do you manage such definition over time? What goes into a "terrorist website" and what not?

Are you actually saying that something so broad and close to impossible to pinpoint as "terrorism" is the same as child porn?
Seriously?

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Do I need to make a list of places which are not subject to frequent terrorist attacks?

So not the US right? Considering how many mass shootings we have every year

 

[KDR_11k]

Of course! No organization like that should be tolerated either.

We're not talking about individuals here though. Let's not act as these are isolated cases. It's not Minority Report.

Organizations get acted against, these ARE individuals or super small groups (3-5 people).

Obviously they don't hang around in terror barracks as an organized army, they live as normal civilians which means they have social interactions with a lot of people, determining which of those are actual terrorist links and which are just incidental is critical because any action or suspicion against innocents will increase the antipathy towards the government and make more people susceptible to radicalization.

When people believe that they get treated badly even if they haven't done anything wrong that's when violent retaliation becomes desirable to them.

Membership in a terrorist organization is a crime and gets acted against. Harboring anti-government thoughts is not a crime because 1. it's impossible to reliably prove or disprove and 2. a lot of people feel hate at times.

Rolling on the convo

Say someone came out and said they support child porn and general other things like that. Would be instant lock up

If someone said they support isis and love all the shit they do and love the attacks and support them going forward. Guess what no lock up

Stating support is not sufficient grounds for an arrest, only admitting action or conspiracy is.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just rush to post?

Can you explain to me how do you define "terrorist website"? How do you manage such definition over time? What goes into a "terrorist website" and what not?

I'm pretty sure we have solved more difficult problems over the course of humanity than how to determine whether something qualifies as "inciting or promoting terrorism"