Safe Speed Forums

I am both morally and politically opposed to such acts of individual violence.

However, what worries me most of all about all of this is that this type of thing is likely to increase and spread to other areas of discontent. This type of direct action is associated with a failure of the democratic process and loss of public confidence in it.

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Exactly. When a c.700,000 signature petition is likely to be ignored, where do you go next?

This pretty much sums up my views also. You can understand how revolutions start from these beginnings. (Oh dear, the terror police will be coming round now!)

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Tell them you're just a drug dealer, then they won't bother you.

_________________
Andrew.

Having traveled around the centre of London by underground, bus, walking and cycling, and with my dad cycling from the station to work daily, I will happily defend the Congestion Charging scheme.

No form of transport is the best, however once you get to a certain level of density, the private car fails to be able to serve everyone. It wouldn't be good to have too many people driving, and people should only really drive in the centre of London if there's no other transport option. In a democracy the typical way of doing this is by charging, which may not be ideal but it works.

By all means come and drive here, the roads have space capacity and parking space for everyone, but if you're going into central London I would advise you to change your form at travel when it becomes convenient to.

Having read the most of p1-3 ---

One question --

A certain GW Bush and T Blair didn't like the way a certain Mr Hussain did his political nasty work (but the this country was an oil producer)---

Answer - invade the country in the name of democracy, bomb it , hang the ruler ,and complain when residents take action against the invasion-
(Merely providing an alternative view) (the oil - not a prime consideration)

AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THE GALL TO CALL LETTERBOMBS UNDEMOCRATIC, WHEN THEY IGNORE A PETITION OF THE SIZE PRESENTED TO THEM AND PERFORM THE ABOVE ACTS.

My next address - under a bed in Shi'te occupied Basra.

Where is this quoted? Undemocratic?

There is NO reasonable defence for causing physical harm to another person, not some skewed view of democratic action, nor "being pushed into it by a regime", nor "a big boy (or government) does it so why shouldn't I".

The sentiment expressed in this thread is sickening.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

"The" sentiment? I thought the thread contained quite a range of sentiments? - Overwhelmingly opposed to the actions in questions as far as I can see?

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

(IN CAPS AS A SHOUT TO HANDY )
AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THE GALL TO CALL LETTERBOMBS UNDEMOCRATIC

--Like removing saadam without a MANDATE ???????

Yes -handy -

Edit - Removed

Sentiments:

they deserved it:


It's understandable, of course if you upset people they will retaliate, poor diddums:










It's the only language these people understand


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one day we'll look back on this and thank the perpetrator:


in really small words so that Botach might understand the question:
please tell all the nice people where letterbombs have been described as undemocratic.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that because someone else does it is no reason for you to do it too? If Bush and Blair put their hand in the fire would you do that too?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I read the general sentiment as “the action of inflicting harm is wrong, but the speculated force/frustrations driving the offender to taking their action is understood and appears to be endemic throughout society, albeit to a much lesser level”

That was a relative comment; I did not state that business is absolutely deserving – I would have thought my first sentence (which you did not quote, the context is altered without it) made that very clear.

Perhaps I should have said "some of the sentiments expressed ..." to be more accurate.

It's my belief that an expression of regret or sorrow followed by a justification for the regretted action is hollow, worthless.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

TUT TIT RIGPIG - DO I DETECT A HINT OF ADHOMINE(or your lack of IQ
PLEASE ATTACK MY ARGUEMENT OR DESIST.
I only offered a comparison --you did the rest
(And btw - note my objection to the letterbombs - DON'T JUMP IN WITH BOTH FEET ,ASSUMMING MASS SUPPORT)

I see no posts giving justification for the letter bombing.

“some” is not a fair reflection on the majority who didn't fall into that catagory.

edit:
Shades of black cannot be considered to be white.

I really don't think that is what you're seeing here.

The fact that someone can see both sides of an argument does not mean that they agree in any part with the wrong one. Simply because the topic is 'more challenging' does not make this any less true.

Riposte edited <Forget it, waste of both cerebral energy and typing strokes>

Governments often have to do things that are unpopular or are misunderstood by the populace however there is a disturbing undertone of antipathy towards the actions of our legally elected government and it is clear from this thread that some herein empathise with the sentiments being expressed.
Our opportunity to dispense with them (the government) lies at the next election, an opportunity we will either grasp or let slip. However, in the meantime any violent actions taken against them are acts of terrorism which attempt to bypass the democratic process,; they should be called precuisely what they are.

<Ahhh, I see the Prof has expressed more or less the same sentiments below>

As I said earlier such acts of individual violence are totally against my beliefs and morality, but to some extent they are the product of a population which feels alienated from the democratic process and feels that its government is not only unresponsive but acting in a cavalier manner as regards rights, freedom etc. To that extent I fear (note - fear not hope for) such things will only happen more.

This cannot be compared to violence by governments and their agencies because, as long as we call our society democratic, our government acts on our behalf (even when we disagree) and to some extent is our collective fault Such "collective" violence, sadly, has normally been accepted as "legitimate" - unless said government loses the war of course, or is overthrown by its own "electorate" when they have finally become so alienated that individual direct action (bad) becomes collective direct action (bad unless successful, when it magically becomes good).

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools