topic Re: Just a thought. in Community Spirit

Just a thought.

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:02:39 GMT

Should threatening to decapitate members of a public organisation be deemed an act of terrorism?

Re: Just a thought.

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:20:45 GMT

it depends.

were they personal threats or threats

designed to spread fear amongst society?

there is a difference between committing

a crime and an act of terrorism.

Re: Just a thought.

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:23:45 GMT

@*julia*2010 wrote:
it depends.

were they personal threats or threats
designed to spread fear amongst society?

there is a difference between committing
a crime and an act of terrorism.

Or just a figure of speech - but who officially decides?

Re: Just a thought.

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:32:33 GMT

that would be different countries legal

systems, wouldn't it?

i think the united nations has a definition

as well.

Re: Just a thought.

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:34:04 GMT

I meant here in Australia.

Re: Just a thought.

karliandjacko — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:38:48 GMT

@*julia*2010 wrote:
it depends.

were they personal threats or threats
designed to spread fear amongst society?

there is a difference between committing
a crime and an act of terrorism.

You mean like white people shooting others commit crimes, while brown people doing the same commit terrorism?

Re: Just a thought.

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:41:51 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
I meant here in Australia.

same answer applies.

the country's legal system (would be my guess)

Re: Just a thought.

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:44:04 GMT

@karliandjacko wrote:
@*julia*2010 wrote:
it depends.

were they personal threats or threats
designed to spread fear amongst society?

there is a difference between committing
a crime and an act of terrorism.

You mean like white people shooting others commit crimes, while brown people doing the same commit terrorism?

no. that was not what i meant.

btw - where did that happen ?

i haven't watched the news today.

Re: Just a thought.

polksaladallie — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 05:59:18 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Or just a figure of speech - but who officially decides?

Well, it was going to be the minister (an ex cop) only, but I believe that has been knocked on the head, so to speak.

Re: Just a thought.

karliandjacko — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:10:25 GMT

@*julia*2010 wrote:
@karliandjacko wrote:
@*julia*2010 wrote:
it depends.

were they personal threats or threats
designed to spread fear amongst society?

there is a difference between committing
a crime and an act of terrorism.

You mean like white people shooting others commit crimes, while brown people doing the same commit terrorism?

no. that was not what i meant.

btw - where did that happen ?

i haven't watched the news today.

The way these events are reported would suggest that brown people with arab backgrounds are terrorists when they shoot people while the white people that shoot random other people are usually described as misguided, mentally disturbed, odd, quiet but rarely have I heard them refered to as terrorists.

Re: Just a thought.

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:21:49 GMT

i have heard some of them being described as

white supremacists or christian fundamentalists/

terrorists.

difficult to comment without referring to specific

incidents - to see whether the label of a terrorist

or mad man was justified.

Re: Just a thought.

village_person — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:51:30 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
Should threatening to decapitate members of a public organisation be deemed an act of terrorism?

Your moral compass seems to be playing up a bit. Why not have it recalibrated?

Re: Just a thought.

the_great_she_elephant — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:14:26 GMT

@village_person wrote:
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
Should threatening to decapitate members of a public organisation be deemed an act of terrorism?
Your moral compass seems to be playing up a bit. Why not have it recalibrated?

Actually this has nothing whatsoever to do with morals. It is a continuation of something I touched on in another thread regarding who decides what is or isn't an act of terrorism and the danger of taking that decision out of the legal system.

Tony Abbott has ordered an investigation nto the ABC and threatened that 'Heads will roll."

Obviously this is simply a figure of speech and, as things stand at present if it came up before a judge it would be laughed out of court.

BUT Suppose the authority to amke that decision is taken from the court and veted in a government misiter, And supposing the government of the day happens to be an extreme left wing Government that considers any threat to the ABC a threat to national security, what then?

AND, as I said in the other thread, don't say 'it could never happen," because history shows us just how easily it could. We don't suddenly throw away all our rights,but if we let them be taken from us bit by bit - and always for the 'best possible' reasons - then one day we may find we are the ones looking down the barell with no presumption of innocence or even the assurance of a fair trial.

Re: Just a thought.

janeababe — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:05:58 GMT

i think to be labelled terrorism, it has to be intended to gain political standing, usually by an extremist group ((???))

I'm not really sure, she-ele, but I don't think threatening for *heads to roll* regarding the ABC debacle will ever be deemed an act of terrorism, not in Australia.

Re: Just a thought.

village_person — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:10:27 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Actually this has nothing whatsoever to do with morals. It is a continuation of something I touched on in another thread regarding who decides what is or isn't an act of terrorism and the danger of taking that decision out of the legal system.
Tony Abbott has ordered an investigation nto the ABC and threatened that 'Heads will roll."
Obviously this is simply a figure of speech and, as things stand at present if it came up before a judge it would be laughed out of court.
BUT Suppose the authority to amke that decision is taken from the court and veted in a government misiter, And supposing the government of the day happens to be an extreme left wing Government that considers any threat to the ABC a threat to national security, what then?
AND, as I said in the other thread, don't say 'it could never happen," because history shows us just how easily it could. We don't suddenly throw away all our rights,but if we let them be taken from us bit by bit - and always for the 'best possible' reasons - then one day we may find we are the ones looking down the barell with no presumption of innocence or even the assurance of a fair trial.

What a load of piffle. What are your views on murder? Do you think that if a person is ugly murder might be a relief for society at large. The world would be made more appealing if ugly people were eliminated.

Let's hear from you.

Re: Just a thought.

debra9275 — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:22:14 GMT

I thought it was a rather "unfortunate" choice of words used by the PM- perhaps he should've put a bit more thought into it

Re: Just a thought.

the_great_she_elephant — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:01:48 GMT

@village_person wrote:
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Actually this has nothing whatsoever to do with morals. It is a continuation of something I touched on in another thread regarding who decides what is or isn't an act of terrorism and the danger of taking that decision out of the legal system.
Tony Abbott has ordered an investigation nto the ABC and threatened that 'Heads will roll."
Obviously this is simply a figure of speech and, as things stand at present if it came up before a judge it would be laughed out of court.
BUT Suppose the authority to amke that decision is taken from the court and veted in a government misiter, And supposing the government of the day happens to be an extreme left wing Government that considers any threat to the ABC a threat to national security, what then?
AND, as I said in the other thread, don't say 'it could never happen," because history shows us just how easily it could. We don't suddenly throw away all our rights,but if we let them be taken from us bit by bit - and always for the 'best possible' reasons - then one day we may find we are the ones looking down the barell with no presumption of innocence or even the assurance of a fair trial.

What a load of piffle. What are your views on murder? Do you think that if a person is ugly murder might be a relief for society at large. The world would be made more appealing if ugly people were eliminated.

Let's hear from you.

Scratching my head in bewilderment. How are my views on murder in even the remotest way relevant to the post you have quoted? I realise we have diametrically opposing views on the meaning of democracy, but did you really manage to read that post without grasping even the basics of what I was saying?