GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
""Execute him!""

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.

Mon 15/12/03 at 16:23
Regular
"twothousandandtits"
Posts: 11,024
"What are we executing him for again?"
"He executed thousands of others."
"Ah."

It would be utterly ridiculous to execute Saddam. On a very basic level, we would be executing him for executing others. Which is, at the very least, hypocritical. How we could justify that is beyond me. Sure, you may believe in "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," but how then are you better than the person you're punishing?

On another level, we would be executing him for executing others who don't agree with his political ideology. And we don't believe in executing people who don't agree with our political ideology. So because of this, we're going to execute someone who doesn't agree with our political ideology. Way to go, assholes.

If Saddam is executed, I really will laugh hard. While I'm watching the event on rotten.com, of course.
Mon 22/12/03 at 16:40
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
NERV wrote:
> We keep Hamza because he's a recognisable figurehead for domestic
> extremists and easily ridiculed by the media and everyone else. We
> know where he is, what he does, hence he is neutralised but okay to
> dig out whenever you need to use him as an example. If we really
> wanted to get rid of him we can do so, and you'll find that it will
> be in a way which makes extradition irrelevant.
>
> Still, nice to see Liberal Light once again defending another fine
> specimen of humanity.

Bwah ha ha ha haaaa! Well, I'll assume this isn't Bell for once and answer simply;

Nice to see you failing to notice the numerous disclaimers I've put on saying that I find Hamza abhorrent, and that I was in fact disagreeing with the rather bizarre idea that the best way to defend freedom is to curtail it.

Of course, it almost certainly is him (he forgot to remove one of his linguistic signatures, and the hints that he know's about the secret machinations of government are another clue), and so I shouldn't have responded to that. But I'm damned if I'm going to let an embittered troll stop me responding to newbies just cos it may or may not be him.
Mon 22/12/03 at 15:50
Regular
"Gundammmmm!"
Posts: 2,339
We keep Hamza because he's a recognisable figurehead for domestic extremists and easily ridiculed by the media and everyone else. We know where he is, what he does, hence he is neutralised but okay to dig out whenever you need to use him as an example. If we really wanted to get rid of him we can do so, and you'll find that it will be in a way which makes extradition irrelevant.

Still, nice to see Liberal Light once again defending another fine specimen of humanity.
Mon 22/12/03 at 11:49
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
WkieeMn wrote:

>
> Italy expelled a group of people who they believed endangered their
> security - more below. Maybe not extradited to a place where they
> face the death penalty, but they god rid of them all the same.
>
> I personally think it's about time we did the same. He supports al
> Qaida and his son's a convicted terrorist; I don't see why we should
> host them.

Nice avoidance of the main point; Italy DIDN'T expel them to face the death penalty. Hamza will face the death penalty. The point of a free society is that you can't kick someone out cos you don't like their views. That's when it ceases to be free. If Hamza is a threat to our national security, then fine; lets ask him to leave. Have we asked him so? No. Yet he's high profile isn't he? So one would have thought that, if he was THAT dangerous, he would have been booted out long ago.
Don't you think it's possible that maybe he's just a ranting wannabbe who'd LOVE to be as important in the terrorist world as he thinks he is?


> Generally, no. But when someone is continuously inciting hatred and
> potentially has links with an organisation committed to killing the
> people of this country, I draw the line.

'potential links'?! So, on the strength of a 'maybe' you want someone sent to face execution? Wow...I guess I can see why people aren't too fussed about being lied to by their government in order to justify and invasion.
I'm with you on the inciting hatred, but what about the BNP? They do the same; where should they be deported to? How about Jews who support the actions of the current Israeli government and actively campaign against anyone who doesn't? Is THAT sufficient? How about the Libyan dissidents who live here? Are they now persona non grata as Gaddiffi has rejoined the international community?


>
> I disagree. From the BBC website: "His most infamous comments
> include praise for Bin Laden and warnings to the UK Government about
> the consequences of attacking Iraq."

Okay; how is praising Bin Laden inciting hatred? I abhor the man, but saying "Bin Laden is a good man" is no more inciting hatred than "Dubya is a great leader".

Warnings to the UK Government about the consequences of attacking Iraq? Erm...I've given warnings of the consequences (which, thus far, are proving wholly correct). I fail to see how that constitutes a problem. Most of the country knew that the Iraq land grab was gonna lead to problems. Are you saying that pointing it out is cause for deportation? You're sounding more and more totalitarian in your defence of freedom.

>
> Searching for quotes from his previous outbursts, I found this at
> City-Journal.org:
>
> "Hamza and his mosque act as a focus for young men who have
> taken the first step of embracing jihadi Islam. They have been known
> to 'pass through' the Finsbury Park mosque and then branch out into
> clandestine training facilities and programs in Britain and abroad.
> At last count, the British Foreign Office reported that at least
> 4,000 British Muslims had received training from al-Qaida, the
> Taliban, or associated terror groups. Many of these came from Hamzas
> congregation, which acts as a point of contact with networks
> abroad."

Yes, but it's not a quote is it? It's a description of it written by someone else. I mean, this is an incredibly wooly statement, with absolutely no specific facts contained within it whatsoever. Who wrote this statement? Where are their facts from? It's not that I doubt that it's in some way correct, it's simply that you're giving nothing more than a knee-jerk "Hamza is a bad man" reaction and giving me nothing beyond hearsay to back it up.
>
> If these actions can't be considered inciteful I don't know what
> can.

Sorry, but how do you come to that conclusion? I've answered the 3 points you've made. In truth I find that your posts on this topic, with the unsupported defamatory statements you're making, far more likely to be found to incite hatred.
>

>
> Well, forgive me for typing in everyday language. You can come down
> off of your high horse now, as I shall endeavour to explain it in
> better English.

Heh. Yeah, sorry about being so snotty there; you caught me in a bad mood that day. Apologies again.
>
> Italy recently expelled seven Islamic North Africans with suspected
> links to extremist activities. The order claimed they had been
> "identified for their proselytising and support for terrorist
> organisations of Muslim origin."
>
> So I'll ask again - if they can do it, why can't we? If not
> extradite him to Yemen, at least return him to Egypt. It seems
> everyone can manage it but us.

Because, as I've said, they were not extradicted to face execution. Am I getting through to you at all here? If someone is to be extradicted, it MUST be to a nation where they won't face execution. Your assertion that 'everyone can manage it but us' reeks of the petulance common to someone who has identified someone he doesn't like and lacks the evidence to fully support his assertions. Moreover, you're continually refusing to acknowledge that NO EUROPEAN NATION will extradict someone to face execution. If 'everyone' does it, why have you given me one example (which, as I've said about 4 times now, is a totally different matter because they were not deported to face execution)?

Also, why are you using the example of a country who's leader who's government has fascist parties as it's members, and has gone on record as saying that Moslem nations are inferior to Christian ones? I mean, since you're so keen on stopping any incitements to hatred, surely that counts as a pretty big one? Why turn a blind eye to that one?


> As you can see, there would be a little more to it than a simple
> dislike of the man fuelled by the Sun and the Mail.


Well...no, I can't. Not from what you've posted. You've given me your opinion and supported it with other opinions, not facts.
>
> And I don't personally see how expelling people with links to
> international terrorism constitutes the end of a free society.

Well, prove the links then. I agree, if he has those proven links we need to do something. Posting a message from a website that basically says exactly what you did and provides just as little evidence is a long, long way from being 'proof'.
Thu 18/12/03 at 21:26
Regular
"High polygon count"
Posts: 15,624
Light wrote:
> Because he faces execution on his return. No EU country will
> extradite someone on criminal charges unless guarantee's are received
> that they will not face the death penalty.

Italy expelled a group of people who they believed endangered their security - more below. Maybe not extradited to a place where they face the death penalty, but they god rid of them all the same.

I personally think it's about time we did the same. He supports al Qaida and his son's a convicted terrorist; I don't see why we should host them.


> Or are you in favour of sending people to their death because you don't
> like what he says?

Generally, no. But when someone is continuously inciting hatred and potentially has links with an organisation committed to killing the people of this country, I draw the line.


> For the record, I think Hamza is an unpleasant bigot. But he's got
> every right to say what he wants as long as he doesn't incite others
> to commit hate crimes, or racial hatred. And, as he isn't

I disagree. From the BBC website: "His most infamous comments include praise for Bin Laden and warnings to the UK Government about the consequences of attacking Iraq."

Searching for quotes from his previous outbursts, I found this at City-Journal.org:

"Hamza and his mosque act as a focus for young men who have taken the first step of embracing jihadi Islam. They have been known to 'pass through' the Finsbury Park mosque and then branch out into clandestine training facilities and programs in Britain and abroad. At last count, the British Foreign Office reported that at least 4,000 British Muslims had received training from al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated terror groups. Many of these came from Hamzas congregation, which acts as a point of contact with networks abroad."

If these actions can't be considered inciteful I don't know what can.


> 'A bunch of them'? Well my oh my, you've really researched this
> before wading in...

Well, forgive me for typing in everyday language. You can come down off of your high horse now, as I shall endeavour to explain it in better English.

Italy recently expelled seven Islamic North Africans with suspected links to extremist activities. The order claimed they had been "identified for their proselytising and support for terrorist organisations of Muslim origin."

So I'll ask again - if they can do it, why can't we? If not extradite him to Yemen, at least return him to Egypt. It seems everyone can manage it but us.


> I've no doubt. But when you kick people out of the country on the
> basis of little more than the Mail and the Sun's dislike of him

As you can see, there would be a little more to it than a simple dislike of the man fuelled by the Sun and the Mail.

And I don't personally see how expelling people with links to international terrorism constitutes the end of a free society.
Thu 18/12/03 at 16:10
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Dr Duck wrote:

>
> Hmm. Maybe. But where could you draw the line between advocating
> acceptable and unacceptable political change?
> So long as people make tax contributions, or would if they had the
> income etc. (not to get bogged down in tax system technicalities),
> don't they have a right to expect something in return?

Why SHOULD one draw a line? Sorry, I should have made myself clearer; I was giving a hypothetical argument, and it's not one that I particularly agree with myself. As long as he's not exhorting people to violent overthrow of the existing system, why does it matter what he advocates? That's the thing about Free Speech; you can say what you want. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the government to make sure that the message they put across is a more inviting one than whatever message fringe lunatics want you to obey.

Trying to ban someone saying something cos you don't like it is lazy and cowardly (he says, having asked Snuggly to ban a troll from the board...). Far better to defeat that persons arguments, or if they're an unpleasant little zealot then make sure you argue them down a path where it becomes clear to anyone with half a brain that the zeolot is an unthinking, argument-parroting moron. The only time a ban or maybe the withdrawal of benefits I mentioned in the hypothetical argument should even be contemplated is if that person is a danger to the state (i.e. they're passing on state secrets to an unfriendly government.) And even then, a very strict rule of evidence should be applied.
Thu 18/12/03 at 15:41
Regular
Posts: 8,220
Light wrote:
> Yeah, he does get a fair few state benefits. And technically, one
> could make a case for saying that, if someone makes treasonable
> statements or advocates the overthrow of the country of their
> residence, they should no longer be allowed to draw any of the
> benefits of that state.

Hmm. Maybe. But where could you draw the line between advocating acceptable and unacceptable political change?
So long as people make tax contributions, or would if they had the income etc. (not to get bogged down in tax system technicalities), don't they have a right to expect something in return?
Thu 18/12/03 at 12:44
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
WkieeMn wrote:
> Why is Abu Hamza still here then, if there are no loopholes? What
> possible reason is there for us to allow him to continue living
> here?

Because he faces execution on his return. No EU country will extradite someone on criminal charges unless guarantee's are received that they will not face the death penalty.
>
> Yemen have requested his extradition on terrorist charges, and his
> son - a *convicted* terrorist, no less - is also living here.

Yes. And he will also face execution. Which is why he remains. Or are you in favour of sending people to their death because you don't like what he says?

For the record, I think Hamza is an unpleasant bigot. But he's got every right to say what he wants as long as he doesn't incite others to commit hate crimes, or racial hatred. And, as he isn't (he's a clever man alas), then we can't touch him.
Or do you think that Freedom of Speech should only apply to people saying what you want to hear?
>
> How can we moan about other countries not extraditing our wanted
> criminals to us, when we don't return the favour?

Because we don't execute criminals.
>
> Are we still worried about them coming down on us about Human Rights?
> Italy recently kicked a bunch of them out and no-one whined at
> them.

'A bunch of them'? Well my oh my, you've really researched this before wading in...a bunch of who? Terrorists? So which country did they get deported to? Did they face the death penalty on their return? I rather doubt it.

>
> Most Brits would love to see the back of him, and I'm sure 99.9% of
> the Islamic population here would also.

I've no doubt. But when you kick people out of the country on the basis of little more than the Mail and the Sun's dislike of him (can you honestly tell me that you think any more than about 20 people would ever have heard of him were it not for tabloid headline-hunters?), then you may as well tear up any idea of being a free society.

>
> I suppose it makes it easier to keep an eye (ho ho!) on his
> activites, but I'll be damned if I can see why we should fund a cushy
> life for someone who'd happily see us all dead at the earliest
> opportunity.

Cushy? Erm...explain how it's cushy please?
>
> Mind you, there is a certain irony about a man condemning us and our
> way of life while happily living among us on state benefits.

Yeah, he does get a fair few state benefits. And technically, one could make a case for saying that, if someone makes treasonable statements or advocates the overthrow of the country of their residence, they should no longer be allowed to draw any of the benefits of that state. But that would require thinking it through, and pardon my bad mood, but you don't seem to have done much more than post a reactionary rant that says little more than "I don't like him".
Thu 18/12/03 at 12:36
Regular
"Wanking Mong"
Posts: 4,884
Skarra wrote:
> Well, we don't know the circumstances of the taping. I mean, suppose
> the medical was the first time they could film him properly. And
> supose after that, it wouldn't have been conveniant.
>
> Point is, we don't know, there's a chance the US were trying to
> humiliate him, but we shouldn't just assume this of them.

That's a fair point. However, we don't know the circumstances because the US have refused to release them. Therefore, the conclusion that the US were attempting to humiliate Saddam is fairly well founded; how many other POW's have been filmed receiving medical examinations?
Thu 18/12/03 at 11:22
Regular
Posts: 8,220
They couldn't spare (literally) 2 minutes to film him standing there?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume they knew exactly what they were doing.
Wed 17/12/03 at 21:58
Regular
"Stay Frosty"
Posts: 742
Well, we don't know the circumstances of the taping. I mean, suppose the medical was the first time they could film him properly. And supose after that, it wouldn't have been conveniant.

Point is, we don't know, there's a chance the US were trying to humiliate him, but we shouldn't just assume this of them.

Freeola & GetDotted are rated

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Very pleased
Very pleased with the help given by your staff. They explained technical details in an easy way and were patient when providing information to a non expert like me.
Just a quick note to say thanks for a very good service ... in fact excellent service..
I am very happy with your customer service and speed and quality of my broadband connection .. keep up the good work . and a good new year to all of you at freeola.
Matthew Bradley

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Hide Feedback Tab

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.