Large Hadron Collider nuclear scientist charged with terror offences

[celtic_crippler]

It's not showing sympathy for someone wanting to kill you.

Do you want to create martyrs galore?

Do you want to drum up even more sympathy for the groups you oppose?

I don't agree with people funding terrorist either, but there is a difference between those that sympathize with a cause and those that carry out the actual operations.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be repercussions, but lining hundreds of thousands of people up and machine gunning them down isn't the answer to achieving your goal.

 

[Tez3]

The fact that most of Americas foreign long term problems are caused by their own own short term solutions should be clue that continuing along the same line of short term black and white policy is not going to solve the problems.

It may be emotionally gratifying to you to just shoot everyone who doesn't do right in your eyes, but it is not going to solve anything. It'll only makes things even worse in the long term.

Personally, I prefer long term solutions.

Bruno, it says I have to spead some more rep around before I can give you more so heres a public appreciation of your posts! sanity must rule if we aren't to descend into the chaos some are trying to take us into.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hardly tea and sympathy Bill, yo have misread my posts, I'm pointing out to you that America supported many groups who are considered terrorists and did in fact support the Taliban while they were against the Soviets, where do you think they got all their weaponry from?

I am quite aware of the recent history of Afghanistan, and even the fact that bin Ladin got his first exposure to combat fighting Soviets using our money.

The fact that the CIA covertly supported the Muj is a far cry from me personally putting a check in the mail to some guy who wants to build a bomb with it to kill somebody I don't like.

I do not dispute that in the history of the world, the USA has done questionable things, even evil things, supported dictators, etc. And had our own revolution ended in defeat, our Founding Fathers would of course be considered traitors and terrorists by the American citizens of Great Britain. History does tend to show that nations do all the things they decry when it suits their interests.

My concerns are more mundane than the overall goodness of the world, however. If a group declares their intention to murder me, demonstrates that by killing thousands of my countrymen, and some guy thinks that's great and sends them a check, I have no trouble declaring that the check-writer is a no-good bad guy and must die. I don't really give a crap that he is just expressing his legitimate anger or dismay or whatever that we did this or did that to his culture, religion, general state of well-being, etc. He may have a legitimate grievance, and I'm not averse to hearing it and trying to understand it. But I will not sit by whilst he pays some guy to drive a plane into my house and wonder why he did it. I don't care much at that point, I just want him not to do it.

How you construe that into sympathy I don't know.You can't absolve your country from the part it played by being indignant now.

I don't absolve my country of anything. We've done great things and horrible things. I think that on the whole, my country is a good one, or I would not be proud to be an American. I don't think that matters when it comes to guys trying to kill me.

I am sure that muggers have their reasons, and my own society might well have contributed in some way to their current state. But when I am being mugged, I'm not terribly interested in understanding the mugger's point of view. I just want not to be mugged.

I have spent my entire working life fighting terrorists and you are less likely to find anyone with less sympathy than I.
Punishment should fit the crime if and when evidence has been produced that proves someone guilty, if we don't work like that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.

Of course. A trial, and if found guilty, then the cigarette and blindfold.

I do not want people who want to kill me roaming around loose, or even locked up temporarily, and the same goes for people who write checks to intentionally fund those who want to kill me. If they want to kill me, I want them to be dead. Clearly, I have no ability to wave my arms and make that so, but it is my opinion.

 

[Tez3]

Bill now you've added that after a trial and if they are found guilty you want them dead, thats a far cry from what you were saying in the first place. All the rest of us were saying is that we mustn't jump to conclusions and have this guy guilty when he may not be. We don't know if he was a sympathiser, a terrorist or an innocent caught up in something, we were suggesting waiting to find out. That's not giving tea and sympathy btw thats called being humane and right. We don't know at this point whether he wants anyone dead let alone you! Very little in the way of facts have been released, there may be little evidence to prove he's done anything, it could be a case of over zealousness on the part of the authorities or a misunderstanding. These happen, for example when I say I'm a liberal, Americans assume I'm the same as their liberals and tend to condemn me for beliefs I don't hold but they think I do but it's a totally different thing here, it's a cultural misunderstanding. We have to wait and see before ranting that the chap should be dead!

 

[Kajowaraku]

I don't know if it is a 'simple solution' as much as it is a basic lack of desire on my part to 'understand' a person who has stated that he wants to kill me and actively tries to do so. I tend to see that as a direct threat and react accordingly.

A bit further back you yourself were advocating a cigarette and a blindfold. I guess the blindfold wasn't to help him appreciate the cigarette more?

Point is, you can't just pre-emptively execute people for having dangerous ideas. It is as has been pointed out in this post before; many of the groups that now cause trouble and have turned terrorist, actually started out in the employ of the united states, being trained and armed by them. I'd say training and arming such a radical group is a step or two worse than sympathising, don't you agree? And they never were anything but radical, they just happened to turn radical on the wrong people in the end.

Now don't get me wrong, terrorism is catch all phrase for a collection of terrible crimes, and should be prevented and prosecuted accordingly. However, this talk of "terrorists" as one unified enemy is just awkward. These aren't "Ze Germans" (no offense to any German readers), these are a bunch of scattered groups, individuals or organisations that share a desire to do damage. Nowadays it seems being Muslin is an informal requirement for being a real terrorist. How awkward is that. I'm sure you're eager to make the world a better place by executing every person out there that (sympathises with people that) is (/are) looking to kill you. Thank you for your concern. Unfortunatly violence tends to spawn more violence, and it won't really do much good, except perpetuate the violence. Terrorists generally became terrorists for a reason. We would probably disagree with their reasons, but the fact is only very few risk their life out of boredom. Tackle the underlying motivations and perhaps we might be getting somewhere in the way of a more durable solution. It has to be dealt with, i fully agree. But I really think executing people for "evil ideas" and "bad friends" is a bad, bad idea.


As for scientists being able to do their share of threat and damage, sure. Look at what aum shinrikyo was setting up in Japan. They manufactured sarin gass, and intend to use helicopters to spray it over the metropolitan, to help the apocalypse get started. the plan failed, some gass was used in the subway, but nothing near the scale they had planned. Still, they came pretty close on a conceptual level, but lacked... technicians and engineers for mass production. Still, the labcoats were a crucial part of the plan.

just my 5ct

 

[Xue Sheng]

Hardly tea and sympathy Bill, yo have misread my posts, I'm pointing out to you that America supported many groups who are considered terrorists and did in fact support the Taliban while they were against the Soviets, where do you think they got all their weaponry from? How you construe that into sympathy I don't know.You can't absolve your country from the part it played by being indignant now.
I have spent my entire working life fighting terrorists and you are less likely to find anyone with less sympathy than I.
Punishment should fit the crime if and when evidence has been produced that proves someone guilty, if we don't work like that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.

The fact that most of Americas foreign long term problems are caused by their own own short term solutions should be clue that continuing along the same line of short term black and white policy is not going to solve the problems.

It may be emotionally gratifying to you to just shoot everyone who doesn't do right in your eyes, but it is not going to solve anything. It'll only makes things even worse in the long term.

Personally, I prefer long term solutions.

Not wanting to start a blame game her folks but historically speaking much of the mess in the Middle East that we are dealing with today can be historically link directly to the actions (contradictory promises to various groups [Zionist vs Muslims and Muslim vs Muslim] with a dash of social Darwinism) of the British Government pre through post WW I into WW II with the later help of the UN. I will give you the historical references if you like, the book is at home and I am not at the moment. But then again I do believe it is somewhere here on MT from a previous post of mine already.

As for the US handling of the situation after that (which we inherited) we have not done so well either.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Bruno, it says I have to spead some more rep around before I can give you more so heres a public appreciation of your posts! sanity must rule if we aren't to descend into the chaos some are trying to take us into.

Damn. So close, and yet so far... (to my 4th green dit )
Thanks Irene.

 

[Tez3]

Not wanting to start a blame game her folks but historically speaking much of the mess in the Middle East that we are dealing with today can be historically link directly to the actions (contradictory promises to various groups [Zionist vs Muslims and Muslim vs Muslim] with a dash of social Darwinism) of the British Government pre through post WW I into WW II with the later help of the UN. I will give you the historical references if you like, the book is at home and I am not at the moment. But then again I do believe it is somewhere here on MT from a previous post of mine already.

As for the US handling of the situation after that (which we inherited) we have not done so well either.

Being a Zionist myself (now that should alienate a few lol), I know my history and Britain's part in the whole mess, hell we were even in Afhanistan well before the Soviets way back in the early 19th century!
The point wasn't to blame so much as to point out that going around killing people because you think they want to kill you is not only a bad idea but it may also be your fault they want to kill you because they think that you want to kill them which of course you do! See how complicated and how much of a vicious circle it is? It has to be broken somewhere if we are to have some sort of peace if not a real one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill now you've added that after a trial and if they are found guilty you want them dead, thats a far cry from what you were saying in the first place.

I corrected myself some time ago:

"Again, I do not think scientists who are terrorists should have access to the LHC. And whilst I agree that this current arrestee should be tried and found guilty before the cigarette and blindfold, if the accusations turn out to be true, then I'm all for it. I am surprised at how blase everyone seems to be about it, but OK, whatever."

It was pointed out to me - repeatedly - that a trial is generally necessary before a sentence, and yes, of course I agree. I also agree, for the record, that if he is found innocent, he should go free.

All the rest of us were saying is that we mustn't jump to conclusions and have this guy guilty when he may not be.

No, with respect, that's not what most of you have been saying at all.

First, some of you said that scientists generally are not terrorists, so there is no cause for concern. I pointed a number of instances where that was wrong - no one replied. Apparently unable to contradict my statement.

Then, some of you said that so what if he was a 'sympathizer', since that was not at all the same as being a terrorist. I said there was a difference between someone who generally supported a cause and someone who sent money to bombers so they could bomb some more.

Then, some of you said that the USA has done awful things, so we're not free of guilt when it comes to creating the conditions that cause people to send money to terrorists. And my reply to that is, yes, you're right. And I don't care when a person points a gun at me why he's justified in doing it, I just don't want him to do it at that particular moment.

We don't know if he was a sympathiser, a terrorist or an innocent caught up in something, we were suggesting waiting to find out.

If you had been suggesting that, I somehow missed it. I apologize for my lack of ability to read that in what was said. I somehow mistook 'so what if he was a sympathizer' for meaning 'so what if he was a sympathizer' and 'scientists are unlikely to be terrorists' to mean 'scientists are unlikely to be terrorists'. I really need to work on those reading comprehension skills.

That's not giving tea and sympathy btw thats called being humane and right. We don't know at this point whether he wants anyone dead let alone you! Very little in the way of facts have been released, there may be little evidence to prove he's done anything, it could be a case of over zealousness on the part of the authorities or a misunderstanding.

If he is, then I'm perfectly fine with letting him go. As I noted, I corrected my previous statement and said that only if he is found guilty should he be offered the blindfold and cigarette.

These happen, for example when I say I'm a liberal, Americans assume I'm the same as their liberals and tend to condemn me for beliefs I don't hold but they think I do but it's a totally different thing here, it's a cultural misunderstanding. We have to wait and see before ranting that the chap should be dead!

To be clear, one can rant about anything one wishes to rant about. I have no power to make the man dead, and I'm entitled to an opinion (or a 'rant', which would be an 'opinion' if you agreed with it), regardless of how much you think I ought to wait and see. I happen to agree with you that we should wait and see, however, and I did earlier amend my statement with regard to that.

We're not in disagreement that if the man did nothing, he should not be punished.

However, your statements regarding what 'we have been saying to you' in this thread are not correct as far as I can tell. What 'we have been saying to you' has morphed considerably throughout the thread.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A bit further back you yourself were advocating a cigarette and a blindfold. I guess the blindfold wasn't to help him appreciate the cigarette more?

I did correct myself. Perhaps at some point, we could move past my earlier transgression?

Point is, you can't just pre-emptively execute people for having dangerous ideas.

I can't execute anyone for anything, I haven't the power. However, I see nothing wrong with executing people who send terrorists money or give them aid and comfort. That's not the same as having 'dangerous ideas', that is taking dangerous actions. I harbor ill will towards those who have ill will towards me, but I agree that they should not be executed unless they act on those intentions. If they do, however, I want them dead and I make no apology for that.

It is as has been pointed out in this post before; many of the groups that now cause trouble and have turned terrorist, actually started out in the employ of the united states, being trained and armed by them.

If I train a dog to do bad things to others and it does my bidding then it turns on me, I will put it down for my own safety. Yes, it's my fault that the dog was trained as it was, and I bear the fault of having had to put it down. Yes, I'm a bad person. But I'm not going to let it attack me just because the fault was originally mine. I am going to defend myself, and that's too bad for the dog.

I'd say training and arming such a radical group is a step or two worse than sympathising, don't you agree? And they never were anything but radical, they just happened to turn radical on the wrong people in the end.

What I care about is who is trying to kill me, not assigning blame on myself when the wolf is at the door. Screw recriminations, we can have those later. First need is to defend one's own life.

Or apologize to your killer as you kneel down, I guess. Your choice.

Now don't get me wrong, terrorism is catch all phrase for a collection of terrible crimes, and should be prevented and prosecuted accordingly. However, this talk of "terrorists" as one unified enemy is just awkward.

Terrorists are not one unified enemy, and I am not aware of anyone talking about them that way.

These aren't "Ze Germans" (no offense to any German readers), these are a bunch of scattered groups, individuals or organisations that share a desire to do damage. Nowadays it seems being Muslin is an informal requirement for being a real terrorist. How awkward is that. I'm sure you're eager to make the world a better place by executing every person out there that (sympathises with people that) is (/are) looking to kill you.

Only the ones who give aid or comfort to those who are looking to kill me. And the ones actually trying to do it too, of course. How that makes me the bad guy is beyond me, but I don't really care if it does. I'm into being alive, and I'm not fond of being dead. So what my country did to deserve what we are getting is not really something I care much about right now. I just want not to be dead. And if that means killing people who are trying to kill me, goody.

Thank you for your concern. Unfortunatly violence tends to spawn more violence, and it won't really do much good, except perpetuate the violence. Terrorists generally became terrorists for a reason. We would probably disagree with their reasons, but the fact is only very few risk their life out of boredom. Tackle the underlying motivations and perhaps we might be getting somewhere in the way of a more durable solution. It has to be dealt with, i fully agree. But I really think executing people for "evil ideas" and "bad friends" is a bad, bad idea.

I did not advocate executing people for having evil ideas or bad friends. Send a terrorist your kind regards, and I suppose that even though I find that repugnant, it's not an offense worthy of death. Send them a check and ask them to buy a bullet or two for you, and yeah, I want you dead. Spawn more violence? All I can deal with is the threat in front of my face when it is in front of my face.

As for scientists being able to do their share of threat and damage, sure. Look at what aum shinrikyo was setting up in Japan. They manufactured sarin gass, and intend to use helicopters to spray it over the metropolitan, to help the apocalypse get started. the plan failed, some gass was used in the subway, but nothing near the scale they had planned. Still, they came pretty close on a conceptual level, but lacked... technicians and engineers for mass production. Still, the labcoats were a crucial part of the plan.

I think I said that. No disagreement there. The argument was that scientists just aren't given to terorrism, and I disagreed. Clearly they can be.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Being a Zionist myself (now that should alienate a few lol),

I'M SHOCKED

I know my history and Britain's part in the whole mess, hell we were even in Afhanistan well before the Soviets way back in the early 19th century!
The point wasn't to blame so much as to point out that going around killing people because you think they want to kill you is not only a bad idea but it may also be your fault they want to kill you because they think that you want to kill them which of course you do! See how complicated and how much of a vicious circle it is? It has to be broken somewhere if we are to have some sort of peace if not a real one.

I figured that you knew the history and I know it is rather complicated. They still tell stories, about the Crusades, in the Middle East about killing the invaders who came to kill them.

I guess I am just a bit sensitive of late since it appears many in the world blame all their problem on the US... that and I am a stickler for historical correctness

 

[celtic_crippler]

Bottom line: You can't kill everyone so you need to find another solution.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I guess I am just a bit sensitive of late since it appears many in the world blame all their problem on the US... that and I am a stickler for historical correctness

It's human nature to blame those that are more prosperous for your problems.

"Why do they have it so good and I don't?"

I think that's probably why in a lot of cases. Of course, it doesn't help that many Americans come off as arrogant arses either. That just adds to it. And yes, I admit to being one at times...GUILTY!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bottom line: You can't kill everyone so you need to find another solution.

In the larger sense, yes. In the case of the person who sends checks to terrorists who have stated and demonstrated their desire and ability to kill my countrymen, I see no reason not to kill them. Can we get them all? I don't know, but I doubt it. However, if we do not stop them at all, they will succeed, and that seems to be a losing proposition. So kill as many as we can, and continue to try to deal with the larger problem as opportunities present themselves.

 

[Tez3]

It's human nature to blame those that are more prosperous for your problems.

"Why do they have it so good and I don't?"

I think that's probably why in a lot of cases. Of course, it doesn't help that many Americans come off as arrogant arses either. That just adds to it. And yes, I admit to being one at times...GUILTY!

It does often come off as arrogance but in reality tbh it's more naivety, it's in American natureI think to be very open about their love and admiration for their country, also to believe that everyone else wants the American way of life. The trouble is we don't though we appreciate the thought, I think Americans get a bit hurt and defensive when they don't realise that basically although in their eyes we don't have as much, we are actually happy with what we've got!
I'm not sure Americans have got it so much better than the rest of us, that may be a new thread so I'll rein in there!

 

[Tez3]

In the larger sense, yes. In the case of the person who sends checks to terrorists who have stated and demonstrated their desire and ability to kill my countrymen, I see no reason not to kill them. Can we get them all? I don't know, but I doubt it. However, if we do not stop them at all, they will succeed, and that seems to be a losing proposition. So kill as many as we can, and continue to try to deal with the larger problem as opportunities present themselves.

Should we then have sent people to America to kill all those supporters of the IRA who wanted me and my countrymen dead?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Should we then have sent people to America to kill all those supporters of the IRA who wanted me and my countrymen dead?

I think arresting them, trying them, and if found guilty, executing them would have been appropriate, yes. I am referring to those who knowingly sent money or gave aid and comfort to the IRA.

 

[Tez3]

I think arresting them, trying them, and if found guilty, executing them would have been appropriate, yes. I am referring to those who knowingly sent money or gave aid and comfort to the IRA.

Including the Kennedys?

it's not in the past tense btw,there are Americans are still supporting terrorists across here.
http://www.noraid.com/

 

[Xue Sheng]

It does often come off as arrogance but in reality tbh it's more naivety, it's in American natureI think to be very open about their love and admiration for their country, also to believe that everyone else wants the American way of life. The trouble is we don't though we appreciate the thought, I think Americans get a bit hurt and defensive when they don't realise that basically although in their eyes we don't have as much, we are actually happy with what we've got!
I'm not sure Americans have got it so much better than the rest of us, that may be a new thread so I'll rein in there!

As for me I do not believe that everyone wants to be an American or live the American way of life nor do I believe that many envy us, they are quite happy where thay are, I have relatives in China that are rather happy living in China and have no desire to live anywhere else (and before the China bashing starts... they could if they wanted to).

However there are those that do blame us for all thier problems and there are those that expect us to solve all thier problems and if we go try we are told we are wrong (and sometimes we are) and if we do nothing again we are told we are wrong, but this is stuff of a different post.

 

[celtic_crippler]

In the larger sense, yes. In the case of the person who sends checks to terrorists who have stated and demonstrated their desire and ability to kill my countrymen, I see no reason not to kill them. Can we get them all? I don't know, but I doubt it. However, if we do not stop them at all, they will succeed, and that seems to be a losing proposition. So kill as many as we can, and continue to try to deal with the larger problem as opportunities present themselves.

Why stop there? Why not go out and kill everyone that's ever purchased heroin? I mean...Afghanistan makes more money off of opium than anything else. Hell, kill everyone that's ever paid for an opiate! That includes anyone that's ever taken vicoden, oxycotin, or had morphine during surgery.

Sound ridiculous? No more so than killing a guy writing a check.

Go ahead and kill them all... I wonder how many people would be left? LOL

Terrorist will get the resources they need regardless of how many people you kill. I'm afraid this isn't necessarily a black & white issue...

Again, I agree there should be cosequences for aiding terrorist. I just don't think that mass killings are the answer and that it would only make matters worse.

Maybe we should just freeze their assets untill and equal amount of funds is given to a more worthy, peaceful cause? For instance, you get caught giving $100,000 to Al Qeuda and your assets are frozen untill you give $100,000 to the Red Cross.... or even double!

It does often come off as arrogance but in reality tbh it's more naivety, it's in American natureI think to be very open about their love and admiration for their country, also to believe that everyone else wants the American way of life. The trouble is we don't though we appreciate the thought, I think Americans get a bit hurt and defensive when they don't realise that basically although in their eyes we don't have as much, we are actually happy with what we've got!
I'm not sure Americans have got it so much better than the rest of us, that may be a new thread so I'll rein in there!

Considering how many people try to get in to our country annually...well... ...there I go again. LOL

BTW, I don't think we have it better across the board. There's a great deal we could learn from other countries that would better life here. I don't think it's a secret that I often criticize my government. LOL