STOP SUPPORTING TERRORISTS!!!!!!

[Bubsa]

Does anyone else find this whole post moronic? You're saying you don't want the government to police your nation properly on the basis that you don't recognise how 10,000s dying in a single incident effected the world view on terrorism? How is trying to prevent further terrorist attacks, which there will be, letting the terrorists win?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't come crying to me when your stretch of outback gets bombed "mate", but I think millions of people, important people, would disagree with you that 9/11 changed the world.

[Hukaideez]

There's a lot of controversy about the whole phone tapping incident and some people appear to be taking it a bit far, like Rizla said even if your phone is tapped what are the odds they'll even listen to your conversations about going to the pub of whatever. As long as you don't have anything to hide I don't see the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, no matter what measures are introduced to prevent terrorism it will still exist because you can't change people's beliefs so there will always be fanatics out there doing what they believe is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for Jean Charles De Menezes I'm sure anybody in his position wold have run if men with automatic weapons are after you. In hindsight it would appear to be a crazy response but in the heat of the moment he can't be blamed for legging it. With the original evidence it appeared the police were correct with their response but the later evidence puts the police in the wrong and at least they now admit that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/tube_shooting/html/default.stm

[AThousandLies]

 

Nothing to hide? So you wouldn't mind if people came into your house, tearing down your property due to allegations that you're in possession of child pornography? That's just an example -- and something ASIO does here to mere suspects. I think you'd mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No i wouldn't mind because thats sick and people should be locked up for it, if it mean't hassling inccocent people to catch the criminals then so be it. would you rather the police searched 10 inocents and caught 3 pedo's, or search 0 inocents and caught 1 pedo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So ... you think it's completely okay for them to search and tear down your house with no shred of evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, there should be sufficient justification and evidence supporting claims -- not just pure speculation and cabbage. Shoot to kill? Well, it looks like we've already shot and killed our rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say we shot away our rights to shoot to kill thats crap, stop for a second, there had already been 2-3 other bombs detonated in london before this guy ran away from armed police. what if he had a button in his hand and at a press of that button another bomb was detonated, (just imagine that happened and the police saw him but shot him in the leg could he still press that button dam rite he could, causing alot more people to die. Our police done the right thing by me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if? What if he was innocent? Oh wait, he was! If ANYONE, especially a foreigner, is being chased by the police, do you think they'll just stand there and kindly receive a beating? Police had NO proof, NO evidence -- merely speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you remember that greek plane that lost cabin pressure, all the passangers passed out and it flew into a mountain. We'll before it hit the mountain greek officals scambled 2 armed jet planes to shoot it out the sky just incase it was another 9/11, i think the point im trying to put across (as harsh as it sounds) but 100 life weighs more than 1, and 1000 lifes weighs more than 200.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you think it's okay to trample over the rights of others in order to 'eliminate' terrorism (which can never be done)?

[Eng]

at the end of the day the police tried and they got it wrong what if they didnt shoot him and he was a terrorist and he blew up 200 people. whats worse one man dying or 200, obivously its 200!. u cant be right all the time we dont live in a world were the police get everything right all they can do is do there best.

[Bubsa]

at the end of the day the police tried and they got it wrong what if they didnt shoot him and he was a terrorist and he blew up 200 people. whats worse one man dying or 200, obivously its 200!. u cant be right all the time we dont live in a world were the police get everything right all they can do is do there best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is absolutely, comprehensively no excuse. That man's wrongful death could easily be compared to as worse, or worser, the death of 200 in a terrorist bombing.

[AThousandLies]

at the end of the day the police tried and they got it wrong what if they didnt shoot him and he was a terrorist and he blew up 200 people. whats worse one man dying or 200, obivously its 200!. u cant be right all the time we dont live in a world were the police get everything right all they can do is do there best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about I just shoot you then? That'll prevent you from having children, hence reducing the total number of stupid people in the world slightly.

[Eng]

i not it can be compared, BUT. what do you think the worse scenario would be..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Man killed wrong fully be police..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Police see terrorist fail to shoot 200 ppl die...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

[AThousandLies]

i not it can be compared, BUT. what do you think the worse scenario would be..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Man killed wrong fully be police..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Police see terrorist fail to shoot 200 ppl die...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think is a worse scenario?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incompetent police shooting anyone on site without any justification, evidence, proof or just intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police who do their job, spot key suspects, close in on them, gather sufficient information to prove their guilt and foil their plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're fighting a losing battle. Give up while you're still (so far) behind).

[Antrune]

 

i not it can be compared, BUT. what do you think the worse scenario would be..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Man killed wrong fully be police..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Police see terrorist fail to shoot 200 ppl die...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think is a worse scenario?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incompetent police shooting anyone on site without any justification, evidence, proof or just intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police who do their job, spot key suspects, close in on them, gather sufficient information to prove their guilt and foil their plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're fighting a losing battle. Give up while you're still (so far) behind).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The guy was running from the police. If he stopped and put up his hands obviosuly the police wouldnt have shot. It was his fault essentially.

[Bubsa]

 

 

i not it can be compared, BUT. what do you think the worse scenario would be..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Man killed wrong fully be police..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Police see terrorist fail to shoot 200 ppl die...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think is a worse scenario?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incompetent police shooting anyone on site without any justification, evidence, proof or just intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police who do their job, spot key suspects, close in on them, gather sufficient information to prove their guilt and foil their plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're fighting a losing battle. Give up while you're still (so far) behind).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The guy was running from the police. If he stopped and put up his hands obviosuly the police wouldnt have shot. It was his fault essentially.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh right, next time I run past the policeman I'll expect death, shall I?

 

 

 

Besides this, there's evidence that he wasn't running.

 

 

 

As for the scenario, there is no 'worst case'

[Hukaideez]

The problem with the shooting was he was ultimately proved to be inncoent. As such the police are the "bad guys" for shooting and killing an innocent man. If he had proved to be a terrorist then the police would have been praised for doing their job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On this occasion the police were wrong but on a different occasion they could save lives by acting the same way.

[DaN]

What does it matter if somebody that doesn't even know you can hear your phonecalls, it's not that they are interested that you're going to the bar at 21:00 with your mates, or do you have something to hide? If it can help provide a terrorist attack, why shouldn't it be allowed. The whole "privacy" thing is so arrogant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So will you give me access to your msn logs since it dosent matter if someone else sees them?

[DaN]

 

 

 

Well chances are if you live in a westernised MEDC then terrorism is a part of your life, you're just fortunate enough not to have been directly affected by it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DONT ASSUME THINGS YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It really [cabbage]s me I lost a friend but I dont let that be a part of my life I even returned for a holiday when many other people choose a life of fear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your afraid dosent mean everyone else is Why should I have my rights infringed on because you live a life of fear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: And who was it that said If you run your quilty?!?! Thats just moronic, If someone runs towards me ill run the other way be pretty stupid to just stand there

[killaz52]

 

Nothing to hide? So you wouldn't mind if people came into your house, tearing down your property due to allegations that you're in possession of child pornography? That's just an example -- and something ASIO does here to mere suspects. I think you'd mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No i wouldn't mind because thats sick and people should be locked up for it, if it mean't hassling inccocent people to catch the criminals then so be it. would you rather the police searched 10 inocents and caught 3 pedo's, or search 0 inocents and caught 1 pedo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, there should be sufficient justification and evidence supporting claims -- not just pure speculation and cabbage. Shoot to kill? Well, it looks like we've already shot and killed our rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say we shot away our rights to shoot to kill thats crap, stop for a second, there had already been 2-3 other bombs detonated in london before this guy ran away from armed police. what if he had a button in his hand and at a press of that button another bomb was detonated, (just imagine that happened and the police saw him but shot him in the leg could he still press that button dam rite he could, causing alot more people to die. Our police done the right thing by me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you remember that greek plane that lost cabin pressure, all the passangers passed out and it flew into a mountain. We'll before it hit the mountain greek officals scambled 2 armed jet planes to shoot it out the sky just incase it was another 9/11, i think the point im trying to put across (as harsh as it sounds) but 100 life weighs more than 1, and 1000 lifes weighs more than 200.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, hello Engl1sh!

 

 

 

Ok, as you may know, the bomb-belts suicide bombers use are quite bulky, so he would have to be wearing a bulky jacket to conceal it. They said he was, but when the documents were leaked showing pictures of him dead, you could see he was wearing a thin denim jacket. So, why didn't the police who shot him realise that fact? And then go and lie about it?

[logic-is-overrated]

These policies and reforms aren't really that bad. But the real question is are the current governments going to stop once they reach a reasonable degree of safety? Right now I don't feel violated and they could probably strip a few more of my rights and I still wouldn't be particularly bothered, but it's not completely unreasonable to assume that some would continue stripping the rights of individuals to the point of complete or borderline dictatorship while claiming it's for the public good.

[killaz52]

I agree with you there. I feel they should stop once there is a certain degree of "safeness". Being Arabic, I don't want to have a chance of being stopped in the streets or something like that when I'm older, and the threat of international terrorism has dwindled.

[assassin_696]

 

 

 

 

Well chances are if you live in a westernised MEDC then terrorism is a part of your life, you're just fortunate enough not to have been directly affected by it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DONT ASSUME THINGS YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It really cabbage me I lost a friend but I dont let that be a part of my life I even returned for a holiday when many other people choose a life of fear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because your afraid dosent mean everyone else is Why should I have my rights infringed on because you live a life of fear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, I am truly sorry to hear of your loss, and as much as i hate to use the death of a human being to prove a point, surely losing a friend has affected your life, and it was through terrorism that you lost this friend? So you HAVE been affected by terrorism, and as sad as this, surely you wouldn't mind the police tapping your phone conversations if it saved even one more life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, i'm afraid am I? How does allowing the police to do their job more effectively mean i'm afraid? That's rubbish, terrorists don't scare me, i don't let them, but i damn sure don't mind the police "infringing on a few of my rights" if it helps catch the people who go out to do these atrocious acts. Tell me one way how your life is going to be negatively affected by these laws, tell me one way how you are going to suffer if you have nothing to hide? You may not be afraid of the terrorists but you certainly seem to be afraid of these anti-terror laws, even though they won't affect you in any detrimental way.

[killaz52]

Hmm... you should know that the rights of a non-arab/asian (and by asian I mean Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani) being infringed aren't going to be affected? The only people affected will probably be people arab/asian looking or people of arab/asian origin. So when you say you don't mind your rights being infringed, it isn't like they will, unless you are arab/asian/muslim. The reason I think that they shouldn't go so far with their new bills proclaiming that they can keep someone for 90 days without charge is because I'm afraid one day, they'll make a mistake and keep me locked up for 3 months for something that I'm completely innocent of.

[KnightLite]

 

 

 

DONT ASSUME THINGS YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

dont be so hypocriticle...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another idiotic post by the same moron who never learned. DaN you are the same now as when you started, posting without knowledge. It's one thing that you are supportive of your position on a topic, but to try to make a topic and back it up when you know nothing about it, pure idiocy...

[Sunli]

Just a litle advice:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do NOT let this thread escalate into a flamewar! I will not only lock this topic so fast you will see the skid tracks after it but I will also seriously consider PM'ing those of you who dont respect this warning.

[bjbj1991]

i flew to disneyland in octobor of 2001 i wasnt afrade i dont see why people are.i understood the 5day wate from 9/11 but people should not be that scared(the plane i flew on wasnt even half full).its like parants not letting their kids have any friends or letting them on the net because they are afrade of drugs and child preditors.if you teach people how to react everyone will be ok.

[Death_By_Pod]

Terrorists are the new communists (replacing a long lineage of scapegoats). Don't think this is anything new; it has been going on for centuries. People will always find something to be afraid of; I think it's a rather natural thing to fear something out your control donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you? In a couple of decades it will pass and then we will move on to something bigger and better (please be granny killing robots).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take a look at the past there were just as many cover ups with the anti-communism movement. E.g.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/i]"ECHELON is thought to be the largest signals intelligence and analysis network for intercepting electronic communications in history. Run by the UKUSA Community, ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UKUSA constituent agencies are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Australia - Defence Signals Directorate (DSD)

 

 

 

* Canada - Communications Security Establishment (CSE)

 

 

 

* New Zealand - Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)

 

 

 

* United Kingdom - Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)

 

 

 

* United States - National Security Agency (NSA)"[/i]

 

 

 

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to think our communications have been tapped for decades without our permission. Have you heard of any false arrests because of this system, some evidence that the government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care about you if you are not suspicious. Seriously the government has better things to do then to track what internet sites your going to or what you are planning to do with your friends. You are not important/the centre of the universe in the eyes of the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However on the other hand it depending on what level and how the shoot to kill policy is implemented it could be dangerous. If the policy applies to any police officer I can see accidents arising, however if only allowed by high ranking and trained officers I could see this as a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mind losing civil liberties (who said we were entitled to them in the first place?) in order to gain something in return. Although currently monitoring is only done for specific reasons, I hope in the future we will invent technology that will form a self aware network to prevent and stop crime.

[DaN]

What many people here hail to realise is the the goal of terrorism is to disrupt our lives and we freely assist them by doing so.

[assassin_696]

What many people here hail to realise is the the goal of terrorism is to disrupt our lives and we freely assist them by doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But this is rare, after the London underground bombing on July 7th, the next day everyone carried on as normal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And even if we did live in fear because of terrorism, this isn't the same as actually "supporting" terrorists.

[nightspirit]

This is getting stupid I hate my officialy country its a nation of cowards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU ARE UNAUSTRALIAN!!!

 

 

 

How dare you call Australia a nation of cowards!!! Did you think about the men who are in the army for Australia? Do you dare call them cowards? The men that protect out shores? You are an idiot!!!