Just a thought.

[the_great_she_elephant]

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

[raptor_rebooted]

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.

[village_person]

---

@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?

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@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.

[janeababe]

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.  

[village_person]

---

@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.

[debra9275]

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 

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@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?