h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How can you just say that Effers, we agree to differ on rewriting history like that, we are going to teach our kids that this was a moral war, soliders, civilians died and endured the horrors of that war and that was just, because there was some sort of noble cause behind it

What precisely did this achieve in terms of freedoms, and any that were gained at what cost?

The War On Terror served to progressively erode our freedoms, undermine our human rights, sell our souls, extraordinary rendition, torture, Gitmo

You defend your culture, we went ot war and tried to provide a framework for peace and democracy in cultures that we did/do not understand, enforcing our 'values' on others

It did not prevent extremism, protect us from extremism, it gave it grist to mill.

It was divisive within communities, society at large,Islamophobia there is an indirect complexity for you It did nothing to promote peace or understanding between peoples and countres

Lets not forget to factor a shedload of oil into the equation

This wasn't even a just war, let alone a noble one

Sorry still not coherant

Replying to post 332:

Who mentioned censorship? Nobody is talking about censorship. How many times must this point be reiterated? Read the subject line. Should these people be allowed into the country?

No.

Next question.

Stopping someone from coming into your country isn't "censorship". We all have a basic human right of free speech. Censorship would be about limiting that right. Do, by all means, go and take part in a conversation about that subject. This is NOT a conversation about that subject.

We NONE of us have a basic human right to go wherever we like in the world without regard for the laws and choices of the inhabitants of our destination. Refusing someone entry to your country is something one can do without having to justify it to anyone, and something one can do without infringing any basic human rights. (Leaving aside the issue of asylum seekers - but nobody is pretending that Westboro Baptists are seeking asylum in the UK.)

So, in direct answer to the question in post 332: no - what a stupid question. Do continue.

I meant to say The War Against Terror

Interesting concept "censorship"....

Does it mean the opposite of freedom of speech? If it does, does it mean that you're either free to speak, or that you've been censored? And that there's no middle ground?

I ask because it has a meaning that's almost exclusively negative. Censorship is something that's almost always bad, or at the very least, it has very strong negative connotations.

If someone is prevented from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, from spreading vicious slander/libel about others, from disturbing the neighbours with their music practice at 3am.. are we saying that such people are being 'censored'?

Because if we are, then the notion of "censorship" has to lose its negative connotations. Because these seem like perfectly reasonable restrictions to me - freedoms of some are limited so that others may have fair use and enjoyment of their freedoms.

But it might be better to say that, no, these are not examples of censorship, and to reserve that label for acts of the state which prevent *any* form of expression of a particular idea (almost always political) through any method.

I find it hard to understand why the lunatic "church" in question could complain about censorship, given the platform that its notoriety and profile gains for it. Where's my local church's Louis Theroux documentary?

Why is that a stupid question If there is something you don't understand Twiglet, please ask me to rephrase it into simpler terms for you to comprehend

I wouldn't censor their democratic right to espouse their tenets peacably, whereever they wish. I don't have to agree or listen if I don't wish to. Words written in the sand with pish to be washed away by the incoming tide. Your very good at that Twiglet

"I wouldn't censor their democratic right to espouse their tenets peacably, whereever they wish."

You don't hold with the concept of national borders or sovereignty then? Interesting. Do go on.

I fail to has that to do with censorship of preaching tenets on soveriegn soil, subject to national and local laws
Are you advocating xenophobia now Twiglet? Do continue, this is interesting and more fun than playing games with pedants Merely everso slightly more challenging

Refusing people from other countries the privilege of entering your own country when their stated reason for wanting to come is to undermine the rights of your countrymen is not xenophobia. Xenophobia is hating people simply because they come from somewhere else. Twiggster has clearly not advocated any such thing.

Straw men go home!

Noggin

"I fail to has that to do with censorship of preaching tenets on soveriegn soil, subject to national and local laws"

You fail to has that to do with? Really?

Nobody is proposing censoring them. In their home country, they are entirely free to speak as they wish, subject to the laws of that country.

But it was YOU who proposed "their democratic right to espouse their tenets peacably, whereever they wish".

So - to repeat the question since you apparently didn't understand it - are you seriously suggesting the abolition of national borders and sovereignty? The right of sovereign nations to set their own laws? Because that is the clear implication.

And, well... that's just stupid, isn't it?

Typo error <> I wrongly gave you the credit of intelligence enough to understand the message regardless of typo errors

I have to fit my responses in around work I don't have the luxuary of doing nothing else other than sitting swivel eyed in front of my PC, and employing sock puppets.

To repeat the question, since you appear to lack the ability to answer a question without repeating the question parrot fashion, are you advovating xenophobia?

This could take sometime Beg your pardon everyone else, even my eyes are starting to glaze over with the simplicity of the responses I'm receiving

I know wht xenophobia means.

You don't know what xenophobia means.

Therefore, I am a sock puppet.

Actually, I'm not. Check my U number.

Noggin

Sock puppet? I assure you, I only operate one account. If you're overwhelmed with the mental load of responding to me, you have my pity.

The responses are simple because the questions are simple (if poorly typed).

Am I advocating xenophobia? No.

Am I advocating reasonable discretion in who we permit to cross our national border? Yes.

For the third time of asking: is your proposal that these people have a "democratic right to espouse their tenets peacably, whereever they wish" truly what it appears to be?

You appear to be suggesting they have a "democratic right" to travel to any country of their choice, whether the target country is a democracy or not, and espouse their tenets, whether to do so is within the laws of that country or not, and that no national border should restrict that right.

Do you understand that that is what you said?

Or did you mean something else?

Sorry, my eyes are glazing over at the complexity of the non-answers to what is a really quite simply question: do you believe the UK has the sovereign right to control its borders, or not?

To break in on the road this thread has taken for moment. I'm going to front up and say, Yes I want to allow them in. I feel so dam proud of this country to do with freedom to say things and write things..that we should demonstrate that by allowing these people in.

To me that demonstrates what trust and faith we have in our society.

That very act would say everything about what we have built.

But that's maybe a kind of irrational insistance on something..I'll front up and admit that...

> do you believe the UK has the sovereign right to control its borders, or not?<

Yes I do absolutely.

Not my sock puppet either

Like I said Yidwig, your words are like writing in the sand.................etc. You do seem to have an inordinate amout of time to waffle on vacuously. Vacuousity can act only as a distraction, therefore I shall ignore you and continue.
Unless of course FFR's comes up Deus ex Machina

Are the Baptists such a bunch of extremist we should debar them from our country? Would the Kirk care either way? I think not.

Do continue the rest of you and Noggin, even if the stylus is stuck on the record

>Like I said Yidwig<

Oi only I'm allowed to call him that. And its always to be meant as fun..not nasty.

<<... and Noggin, even if the stylus is stuck on the record.>>

I've made less than half a dozen short posts on this thread, and can't see that I've repeated myself once

I've clarified the difference between border controls and censorship, and the difference between disliking a small group of people (who we all agree are pretty unlikeable), and xenophobia.

In the same period of time you've accused me of being a sock-puppet and a stuck record, asked another researcher two follow-up questions which didn't follow from anything he had said earlier, and used these devices to evade a request for clarification of something you posted.

I mean, really!

Noggin

I was thinking how nice it is to see you again Noggin

Otto:
>>"Friends and families of those in Wooten Basset tolerated that rubbish from the Islamists because those men ultimately dies for freedom of speech."

>>What rubbish??? The "protests" did not happen as far as I'm aware. Happy to be corrected, but let's have some evidence.

>>And no, none of the soldiers died in Afghanistan for "freedom of speech".

And one might add that Wooton Basset is a town that hearses drive through. I would imagine that most friends and families of the deceased prefer to say their farewells at their local church or crematorium rather than by the side of the road.

I sometimes wonder about the crowds. Did they think 'I fancy a day out. I wonder if there's any planes coming in at RAF Lyneham?