[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

are you presuming that there is no threat then and ignorance is bliss, that we can ignore the threat because its minor? those people that do die because of it dont mat6ter as much as the people being searched?

I'm saying there are laws already in place and erstriting freedom for the sake of it is a bad thing.

and just because the government has the power to abuse this does not mean they will.

I mean yeah, when has a government ever abused its power?

instead doing nothing which could possibly lead to increased deaths, by not policing the threat, is a better option?

Of course, before these new measures people were free to go around blowing things up and killing people as long as they called it 'terrorism' and not 'murder'.

You assume that this increases terrorism, i say otherwise. Your burden to prove

My fault here, I should have been clearer. Stop supporting western imperialist policies around the world. Remove the troops form Iraq. Stop supporting brutal dictators.

IF we want to stop global terrorism we should start with stopping our own.

just because they didnt find any doesn't mean they weren't really looking..

That's why the UN Weapons Inspectors were there, against US wishes. When they found nothing Iraq was invaded anyway. and the US and UK troops found nothing. They made dodgy dossiers and laughable claims about Saddams weapons which fell apart under even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. They even implied Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even though he is a mortal enemy of Bin Laden.

Would you use it against someone else in an opposing political party? Why do you presume they would?

What I would do is irrelevant as I wouldn't do what was necessary to be in such a position to abuse said powers. I never mentioned the opposition party. I was referencing dissidents and those who wish to see a change in the political status quo. For an example, take the old man who was removed from the Labour Party conference for shouting 'Nonsense' at Jack Straw. Was that an abuse of anti-terror laws?

who says they say anything untrue then, your burden to prove.

I'll use my Iraq example again.

increased security you mean? the policing of crimes? im sorry i dont see why you automatically assume this is bad.

When we're all secure and happy and safe who is going to make sure we're free?

i say its not destroying the british legal system, your burden to prove.

The attempts to hold people indefinalty without charge? The presumption of guilty until proven innocent?

thats not what i said, clearly and may i point out that lying isnt always a bad thing?

How can you trust someone who may be lying to you? You've already admitted they lie. As an exercise this is getting rather tedious.

What evidence do you have that they dont? Say the can't Why not make sure they can't by stopping them now?

What's to say all Arabs are aliens who are just about to send a message to their Galactic Overlord to send spaceships to enslave the entire human race? Better wipe them all out before it's to late!

true, safer not to wait for it.

Do you honestly think nothing was being done before these laws?

so i have done something which has caused me to be targeted? Tell me what did i do? i deserve to die? is this really the best argument you can come up with?

You support the elected government that is responsible for killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and helping to cause the conditions for a civil war, all of which was predicted before hand and could have been prevented. Not to mention the weapons sold to Saddam in the 1980s during his worst crimes and supporting the sanctions which had a devasting effect on the civilian population whilst strengthenign Saddam. Not supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia. Not supporting extreme violence by Israel against the Palestinian population. Is that reason enough?

your view point isn't status quo? :/ never.

My view isn't status quo but neither is it restricting peoples freedoms.

glad to know who im dealing with.

I'd be quite surprised to find if you actually 'knew' anything at all.

great argument.

It takes one to know one.

Well done, you know a song.

Which is more than you do. Apparantly.