The Real Big Brother

[Lxxx]

Lxxx and EG it's a lot easier to take that view living somewhere like the IoM, where the threat seems remote.

 

Too true, while working in Brussels I made a trip back to the IOM to visit my mother. While driving up to Ramsey from Ronaldsway we saw a flash in the sky - that was Pan Am flight 103 exploding over Lockerbie, onboard was the guy I shared an office with.

 

http://www.findagrav...r&GRid=40901771

 

"Arnaud Rubin was killed on Pan Am flight 103 due to a bomb being placed on board his flight. The bomb exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing him and all his fellow passengers. He was sitting at seat number 39G during the explosion. He was from Belgium."

 

A sad story, but on it's own doesn't constitute any valid input into this discussion.

[GD4ELI]

Lxxx and EG it's a lot easier to take that view living somewhere like the IoM, where the threat seems remote.

 

Too true, while working in Brussels I made a trip back to the IOM to visit my mother. While driving up to Ramsey from Ronaldsway we saw a flash in the sky - that was Pan Am flight 103 exploding over Lockerbie, onboard was the guy I shared an office with.

 

http://www.findagrav...r&GRid=40901771

 

"Arnaud Rubin was killed on Pan Am flight 103 due to a bomb being placed on board his flight. The bomb exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing him and all his fellow passengers. He was sitting at seat number 39G during the explosion. He was from Belgium."

 

A sad story, but on it's own doesn't constitute any valid input into this discussion.

 

Yes it does. Terrorism affects everyone; even on a small insignificant rock you are not immune. During the days of the IRA it was quietly known that a blind eye was turned...

[Lxxx]

Lxxx and EG it's a lot easier to take that view living somewhere like the IoM, where the threat seems remote.

 

Too true, while working in Brussels I made a trip back to the IOM to visit my mother. While driving up to Ramsey from Ronaldsway we saw a flash in the sky - that was Pan Am flight 103 exploding over Lockerbie, onboard was the guy I shared an office with.

 

http://www.findagrav...r&GRid=40901771

 

"Arnaud Rubin was killed on Pan Am flight 103 due to a bomb being placed on board his flight. The bomb exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing him and all his fellow passengers. He was sitting at seat number 39G during the explosion. He was from Belgium."

 

A sad story, but on it's own doesn't constitute any valid input into this discussion.

 

Yes it does. Terrorism affects everyone; even on a small insignificant rock you are not immune. During the days of the IRA it was quietly known that a blind eye was turned...

 

I have only been on the rock a very short time, many years spent in Manchester and London brought home the real threat of the IRA. However I was more likely to be killed driving to work than being blown up at work. I am not saying that there is no such thing as terrorism, nor do I disrespect anyone affected by it, however the word 'terror' or 'terrorism' has been allowed to be turned into a catch all phrase, designed to label anyone/anything/any views that may be against the state, which in my view has not occurred accidentally.

[guzzi]

I often think that it's a shame that in the UK, we do not have public demonstrations against terrorism. In Spain, where I spend part of my life, it was common for ETA attacks to be followed by spontaneous demonstrations against terrorist violence. It helps to undermine the inexcusable nonsense that Lxxx espouses about the threat being invented by governments in order to pursue some ulterior agenda of their own. It is not. It is quite real, and as I have said, I have had direct personal experience three times in my life.

[guzzi]

Lxxx and EG it's a lot easier to take that view living somewhere like the IoM, where the threat seems remote.

 

Too true, while working in Brussels I made a trip back to the IOM to visit my mother. While driving up to Ramsey from Ronaldsway we saw a flash in the sky - that was Pan Am flight 103 exploding over Lockerbie, onboard was the guy I shared an office with.

 

http://www.findagrav...r&GRid=40901771

 

"Arnaud Rubin was killed on Pan Am flight 103 due to a bomb being placed on board his flight. The bomb exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing him and all his fellow passengers. He was sitting at seat number 39G during the explosion. He was from Belgium."

 

A sad story, but on it's own doesn't constitute any valid input into this discussion.

 

Yes it does. Terrorism affects everyone; even on a small insignificant rock you are not immune. During the days of the IRA it was quietly known that a blind eye was turned...

 

I have only been on the rock a very short time, many years spent in Manchester and London brought home the real threat of the IRA. However I was more likely to be killed driving to work than being blown up at work. I am not saying that there is no such thing as terrorism, nor do I disrespect anyone affected by it, however the word 'terror' or 'terrorism' has been allowed to be turned into a catch all phrase, designed to label anyone/anything/any views that may be against the state, which in my view has not occurred accidentally.

 

Of course you were. Does that mean the government should only focus on road safety and ignore terrorism?

[Lxxx]

I often think that it's a shame that in the UK, we do not have public demonstrations against terrorism. In Spain, where I spend part of my life, it was common for ETA attacks to be followed by spontaneous demonstrations against terrorist violence. It helps to undermine the inexcusable nonsense that Lxxx espouses about the threat being invented by governments in order to pursue some ulterior agenda of their own. It is not. It is quite real, and as I have said, I have had direct personal experience three times in my life.

 

It is not invented it is exaggerated, in my opinion. Don't twist my words to suit your argument.

[guzzi]

I often think that it's a shame that in the UK, we do not have public demonstrations against terrorism. In Spain, where I spend part of my life, it was common for ETA attacks to be followed by spontaneous demonstrations against terrorist violence. It helps to undermine the inexcusable nonsense that Lxxx espouses about the threat being invented by governments in order to pursue some ulterior agenda of their own. It is not. It is quite real, and as I have said, I have had direct personal experience three times in my life.

 

It is not invented it is exaggerated, in my opinion. Don't twist my words to suit your argument.

 

Quite happy with exaggerated. But I don't accept that it is exaggerated by governments.

[MilitantDogOwner]

So Lxxx links an article which is someones "opinion" and that is a valid contirbution. I link a wiki page and somehow thats different.

 

I think you're tinfoil hat is a tad too tight, lexipoos

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Unfortunately, because this threat is loosely organised and not confined to any particular territory,and because of the internet, we cannot intercept hostile communications so easily.

That's true.

 

In my view it is vital that we do effectively keep our enemies under surveillance.

I agree.

 

...

 

Is this level of intrusion into our private lives justified? In my view it is commensurate to the threat that we face and therefore justified. Clearly, I would much prefer to live in a world where it isn't necessary, just as I would like to live in world where you could just walk onto a plane without scanning, x-rays, pat-downs and taking off your shoes. But I reluctantly accept all that so that I can travel. I also reluctantly accept that anything that I send out over the internet might well come under some level of scrutiny by security agencies.

But no, I don't agree it is justified. I think this because these enemies of ours are of our own creation. It is the same State that implements the monitoring of people's private correspondence that also creates the problem.

If you wish to live in a world where it is not necessary then argue for a world where the State does not conduct itself in the manner it does in.

The Al Qaeda ideology, although not motivated wholly by it, is founded on the belief that the West is its enemy through economic and political influence in the Middle East. Changing that belief requires the West to change its economic practices.

 

Were we to have to have a group of terrorists in our midst with an irrational ideology or motivation then we would have a problem that may warrant the State's access to private correspondence.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I often think that it's a shame that in the UK, we do not have public demonstrations against terrorism. In Spain, where I spend part of my life, it was common for ETA attacks to be followed by spontaneous demonstrations against terrorist violence. It helps to undermine the inexcusable nonsense that Lxxx espouses about the threat being invented by governments in order to pursue some ulterior agenda of their own. It is not. It is quite real, and as I have said, I have had direct personal experience three times in my life.

I assume you mean specific forms of terrorism by way of Islamic non-State terrorism and that of the RIRA? For one thing, it would be unrealistic because the vast majority in the UK are non-Muslim or are not fundamentalist Muslims. Those of the fundamentalist slant would know quite well what the public's take is on their behaviour. But it would be an irrelevance to their cause. These people are so delusional about their cause and the fact they will be favoured by their God that they have an arrogant and selfish outlook that public demonstrations would do little to affect.

It is the ideology that needs to be attacked rather than the form of violence chosen. And the same can be largely said about the RIRA. Although I don't know the exact politics of the RIRA.

 

The situation in Spain, I would presume, is very much different, where a group of the same nationals is following through a particular method of political expression and that is being condemned by the community in a relatively small locale.

It is questionable whether it has even succeeded in Spain. Have ETA attacks declined because of a public lack of approval?

[guzzi]

..... no, I don't agree it is justified. I think this because these enemies of ours are of our own creation. It is the same State that implements the monitoring of people's private correspondence that also creates the problem.

If you wish to live in a world where it is not necessary then argue for a world where the State does not conduct itself in the manner it does in.

The Al Qaeda ideology, although not motivated wholly by it, is founded on the belief that the West is its enemy through economic and political influence in the Middle East. Changing that belief requires the West to change its economic practices.

 

Were we to have to have a group of terrorists in our midst with an irrational ideology or motivation then we would have a problem that may warrant the State's access to private correspondence.

 

I don't think that the economic and political influence of the West in the Middle East is central to AQs ideology. It is undeniably a part of it, but their central premise is that Islam as it exists in most of the Muslim world is actually un-Islamic and that most Muslims are therefore apostates. It believes that any leader who purports to to be a Muslim but who supports democracy is supporting a rival religion and is therefore an apostate. It aims to replace government with a supra national caliphate that adheres to their ideas of Islam and implements a sharia legal system. Of course, the relentlessly pro-Zionist stance of the US and and to lesser extent the UK is far from helpful, but even if this were to change, and whatever the West does in the Middle East, AQ's goals would be largely not met.

 

I maintain that defending against attacks and pursuing foreign policies that undermine support for fundamentalist Islam are both absolutely necessary.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Whereas I see the West's foreign policy or, more precisely, it's economic role in the world as the cause of such terrorism. Al Qaeda's ideology, in my opinion, appears to have developed as a result of viewing other nation's as the enemy and has exploited the religious connections of people in resisting this enemy on the back of a political mission to create a caliphate. But it quite understandable and often the people are often justified in viewing us as the enemy. Remove the cause for that belief and the threat would diminish. And the cause is not different religions. I consider that to be the excuse.

 

But yes, pursuing foreign policies that avert the danger are obviously preferred. However, Afghanistan, Iraq and the support of Israel show that much needs to change.

 

And how much of your privacy and freedom are you willing to give away for the sake of increasing the likelihood of terrorist identification?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The British State and elites in the country have no interest in protection of the public. The protection would come from the operations of the intelligence services is not motivated by the need to protect the public. It is incidental. Only a method of controlling the fallout from western foreign policy, as there would be serious consequences of not doing so.

 

My concerns are also about the State having this data and how else this data is used. The State prime interest is to maintain control of the populace. The more information it has, the better it can effect control.

[guzzi]

I have a fundamentally different analysis, LDV. There is a huge divergence of ideas between Islamic fundamentalism and the modern, rational, broadly liberal world. I see this as being as significant as the difference between post and pre enlightenment European thought.

 

Whatever our foreign policy, this divide will remain. As I said previously, AQ's central ideology is much more to do with opposing liberal, progressive ideas within the Islamic world than it is to do with simply attacking the West. It is wrong to see the West's foreign policy as the main cause of Jihadist attacks, at their root is a fundamentally different world view.

 

I accept that Western foreign policy has been very unhelpful in countering anti-western sentiment in the Islamic world, but even if the UK were to adopt a very different stance in the world, it would still be necessary to counter the threat that emanates from Islamic fundamentalism, and the need for surveillance would remain. I agree that the state will very probably abuse some of the data that it captures from surveillance, and I resent the fact that my emails, messages, tweets even Google searches are very probably scrutinised by government systems. But on balance, I accept the need for it and am prepared to live with it.

 

Unfortunately, if you take a different view, it isn't possible to opt out unless you decide not to use most of the internet.

[Evil Goblin]

the modern, rational, broadly liberal world. I see this as being as significant as the difference between post and pre enlightenment European thought.

I think you are being somewhat "Westerncentric" in saying this. It is an error to believe that predominant Western values are shared outside of Europe and North America. The rest of the world is much more conservative in it's views.

 

Whatever our foreign policy, this divide will remain. As I said previously, AQ's central ideology is much more to do with opposing liberal, progressive ideas within the Islamic world than it is to do with simply attacking the West. It is wrong to see the West's foreign policy as the main cause of Jihadist attacks, at their root is a fundamentally different world view.

It was indeed US/British Foreign policy which brought about AQ. Originally, AQ's objective was to eject the ruling family from Saudi Arabia and that is still a prime objective. In arming and generally supporting the Saudi regime we brought the wrath of AQ down on us. If we hadn't supported the Saudi despots who knows - AQ might have withered on the vine long ago.

 

I resent the fact that my emails, messages, tweets even Google searches are very probably scrutinised by government systems. But on balance, I accept the need for it and am prepared to live with it.

You can resent it all you like as far as Governments are concerned - just as long as you accept it. Governments will always try their damndest to exert ever-increasing control over their populaces and the more we exhibit sheep-like acceptance of surveillance the more constrained will become our freedoms. Life is a risk business anyway and I don't want my freedoms curtailed so that Governments can pursue their own controilling objectives.