France responds to paris attacks by rushing through internet censorship bill

[TheExcalibur]

Hillary Clinton once said "Never Waste a Good Crisis" and boy was she right

This sets a dangerous precedent that could potentially occur elsewhere, such as the United States.

There are a lot pf powerful men and women who are not pleased that more people are aware of what's going on in dark political corners thanks to the internet. They have long since desired to control the international commons of cyberspace for their own purposes.

 

[Boobalaa]

fascism in the guise of National Security

 

[Perados]

On the first view you could guess they haven't learned anything from the years after 9/11... we still have to suffer under the over reactions from back then.

On the second thought, you think that all the reactions are in full awareness about the outcome. That the overreaction follows a special agenda, knowing that such hard laws are only possible after a shock.


Very disappointing

 

[Jason]

The problem is not how France is restricting freedoms at the moment, but how the new powers may potentially be used to restrict freedom. Pretty much the same could be said for the UK.

In the last few days we've had a rant from Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the opposition in the UK) about what he sees as unsympathetic reporting about him by the UK media, along with the idea that this should be stopped. The risk in the UK is that laws intended to restrict hate crime and the promotion of terrorism are used post 2020 to stifle opponents of Corbyn. It is very hard to see how laws can be phrased in a way that a government cannot use to restrict freedom of speech.

I suppose the short-term compromise is that we do need to tackle terrorism by restricting their use of the net, and in order to do this we need trustworthy guardians. I think France has such a guardian in Hollande, and the UK in Cameron. However in the UK we have the prospect of a Prime Minister who censors the media. Maybe we need laws with a sunset clause, ie we give additional powers for two or three years.

 

[Boobalaa]

We also need more transparency "Sunshine" Laws to expose how the Financial Sector profits from What is euphemistically labeled Terrorism. It's no big secret, that what is transpiring before our eyes is one big lie. It's the same old Cold War script with a different enemy. Instead of the International Communist Conspiracy , now it's Radical Jihadi Muslims forming a worldwide Caliphate.
So you want to restrict all use on the Internet by "the terrorists" hunh? Fine and dandy, especially when the same folks who want more restrictions are also in cahoots with the folks who are helping to create "more new terrorists" every day! Lmao!
So more and more people will have less and less internet access until what?.. There are two internets, who knows, there probably already are more than two..on the flip side, with all these new restrictions and security measures on the terrorist, how many new Ed Snowdens and Chelsea Mannings will this create?

 

[TheExcalibur]

fascism in the guise of National Security

Totalitarianism actually, the goal is to keep us all in the dark

We also need more transparency "Sunshine" Laws to expose how the Financial Sector profits from What is euphemistically labeled Terrorism.

Of course, there are many powerful and influential people who have financed terrorism.

On the first view you could guess they haven't learned anything from the years after 9/11... we still have to suffer under the over reactions from back then.

You're blaming the victims of this, the public. As far as I'm concerned, the public is blameless for what happened: We aren't at fault for being deceived.

The people who exploited our fears and deceived us are to blame.

On the second thought, you think that all the reactions are in full awareness about the outcome. That the overreaction follows a special agenda, knowing that such hard laws are only possible after a shock.

This censorship bill was probably being drafted before the attack occurred. They waited until political impossible became political acceptable.

The problem is not how France is restricting freedoms at the moment, but how the new powers may potentially be used to restrict freedom. Pretty much the same could be said for the UK.

The very existence of the law is the danger

In the last few days we've had a rant from Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the opposition in the UK) about what he sees as unsympathetic reporting about him by the UK media, along with the idea that this should be stopped. The risk in the UK is that laws intended to restrict hate crime and the promotion of terrorism are used post 2020 to stifle opponents of Corbyn. It is very hard to see how laws can be phrased in a way that a government cannot use to restrict freedom of speech.

And then you basically have David Cameron effectively saying that conspiracy theories of a non-violent nature are as dangerous as ISIS.

That's very disturbing don't you think?

While I'm on this: You know how the term "Conspiracy Theory" came to be?
Here you go: The CIA created the term to attack anybody who challenged the official explanation

I suppose the short-term compromise is that we do need to tackle terrorism by restricting their use of the net

Actually, if they speak publicly: They can be more easily tracked. Restrict their speech and they go under and become more dangerous

Hollande is not a trustworthy guardian: He's been moving to expand his power.

However in the UK we have the prospect of a Prime Minister who censors the media. Maybe we need laws with a sunset clause

The Patriot Act had a sunset clause, except it keeps getting renewed.

 

[Klingsor]

The Patriot Act had a sunset clause, except it keeps getting renewed.

How lovely: a never-ending sunset.

 

[185248]

How apt, he we are sending troops to fight 'supposedly'.... for freedom and democracy, but we are being told we need to give it up to do so.

Wow, now that's a clever strategy.

Kind of like drinking non alcoholic wines. What's the point?

It started here in Aus a while ago when the Abbott government introduced and passed data gathering laws. Then used it to silence doctors and staff reporting conditions working at detention centres that deal with refugees and immigrants who arrive by boat.

 

[185248]

www.theguardian.com: AMA joins protest against asylum law that can jail detention centre staff

 

[TheExcalibur]

How lovely: a never-ending sunset.

More like never-ending nightmare lol

How apt, he we are sending troops to fight 'supposedly'.... for freedom and democracy, but we are being told we need to give it up to do so.

Wow, now that's a clever strategy.

No, what's clever is that every time we go to fight them terrorists, we create twice the number we eradicate. When you consider that ISIS was funded and created by the US/UK/Saudi Arabia/Israel, this effectively makes for the ultimate crisis machine.

What's the point?

Power

www.theguardian.com: AMA joins protest against asylum law that can jail detention centre staff

Ask yourself why they would want to go to such lengths to stop people from reporting what's going on in asylums? One would think the conditions would be horrendous or intolerable.

 

[Jason]

When you consider that ISIS was funded and created by the US/UK/Saudi Arabia/Israel.

This is dangerous rubbish and needs to be called out as such. The view has as much validity as the view that the earth is flat.

 

[Boobalaa]

This is dangerous rubbish and needs to be called out as such. The view has as much validity as the view that the earth is flat.

Why stop there, let's throw in the International Communist Conspiracy,Santa Claus, and GODS with an S!.what makes it anymore dangerous than what you believe, besides admitting to yourself you have been lied to. Kinda like when you first realized there was no Santa Claus, only people don't get blown up for not believing in Santa Claus.
Or, do you have a stake in the status quo? How is your stock portfolio looking? I know mine is looking very good these past few weeks. That's the kicker; Wall Street and The City of London are making out like "bandits" figuratively and literally.

 

[rbkwp]

related, i think ha
well to your post anyway boobs
funny enough
saw this earlier and was wondering if theyre pulling out because of jealousy re the recent closer ties/investment by Cina, even India, no comment re the UK hosting Egypts Sisi, bloody embarrasing

very interesting article btw OP

Counting the Cost - Shutting up shop: Why's ADIA closing its London office?

 

[dandelion]

This is dangerous rubbish and needs to be called out as such. The view has as much validity as the view that the earth is flat.

Unfortunately not. We created all these current terrorists by past actions. Moreover, the reason they are any danger to us is because we insist on involving ourselves in the affairs of their countries. If not, we could simply have left them to fight amongst themselves.

But looked at objectively, this is not a time when we have a serious threat from terrorists. There are hardly any bombs compared to the recent past, such as the IRA in the UK. I was struck by the news saying that one of the terrorists killed in France was responsible for 4 of the 6 plots which had been uncovered in the previous year. Clearly they can't have been uncovered very well, or he would not still have been at liberty. But since he was responsible for 2/3 of all terrorist activity, it sounded to me as if already 2/3 of the threat had been eliminated. Terrorist incompetence is our greatest defence and it always has been.

I fancy just about everyone -apart from the public- must be pleased by the Paris bombs. The terrorist organisation gets its publicity and some news to encourage its supporters. The various governments get an excuse for empire building of their secret services.

 

[vince]

Unfortunately not. We created all these current terrorists by past actions. Moreover, the reason they are any danger to us is because we insist on involving ourselves in the affairs of their countries. If not, we could simply have left them to fight amongst themselves.

I agree. The way to stop terrorism is to stop creating more and more terrorists. America and their UK, France, and other various toadies did it. Actually, they weren't fighting amongst themselves (much) before we imposed Israel on them, drew their national borders to suit our needs, set up friendly fundamentalists governments and organized coups and invasions for the nations that didn't toe the line.

I fancy just about everyone -apart from the public- must be pleased by the Paris bombs. The terrorist organisation gets its publicity and some news to encourage its supporters. The various governments get an excuse for empire building of their secret services.

Without enemies, what would the war industries do?

 

[Boobalaa]

Vangelis; The Drums of Gaugamela

More Unity in "anti-IS" effort

France and Russia agree to share intelligence, coordinate on selecting targets.
French President Francois Hollande;
Speaking after the Kremlin meeting about the downing of the Russian jet; " serious incident, obviously regrettable"
"It is crucial in that period to avoid any risk, any incident, and prevent any escalation"
" The only goal we must have is fighting Daesh and neutralize the terrorists, there is no other goal."
"...increase information and intelligence exchange, intensifying air strikes against Daesh, which will be subject to a coordination to increase their efficiency "..."...the forces combating Daesh and other terrorist groups must not be targeted by our actions."

(Vearly interelesting)...hmmmm "other terrorist groups, aye?..You can't enjoy both of two desirable but mutually exclusive alternatives

Vladimir Putin;
"..determine the territories which could be struck, as well as those that must be spared, exchange information on various issues and coordinate action on the battlefield."

On the subject of Assad's future;
Putin; "should be at the hands of the Syrian people"
Hollande; ".. From France's view, it's clear Assad does not have his place in Syria's future.."

"British leader backs Syria air strikes on IS"
..The Paris attacks have given the fight new urgency and Britain owes it to key allies to act.
British Prime Minister David Cameron;
"These are our closest allies and they want our help."
" We have to hit these terrorists in their heartlands. We have and we must not shirk our responsibility for security or hand it to others"
He said air strikes should be part of a "comprehensive overall strategy " to destroy IS, end the Syrian War and rebuild the country."
He argued that military action was legal under the UN' Charter's right to self defense.
And he said while ground forces would be needed, they would not be British.

He said British authorities have foiled 7 attacks in the past year either planned or inspired by IS.
The main opposition Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn;
Military action could have, " unintended consequences" as it did in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan "


Germany to join ISIS fight

The decision to send 4 to 6 reconnaissance jets and a carrier was made Thursday night.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel;
"It is not possible to fight Islamic State with words: You have to fight them militarily."
"We have to end the talk and act because of the high value we place on security, and this demands decisive action"

Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen;
"Everyone can see that problems will come our way if we don't take care of them in a timely fashion"

"March of the Templers"