web analytics

BLM Bums Bum Rush Pro Cop Rally In Brooklyn

By Phantom On July 14th, 2020

I don’t understand the concept of the counter-demonstration. . Those who want to counter any demonstration that they don’t totally agree with.

BLM has held about a billion demonstrations across America, and AFAIK very few of those demos have been seen counter protests.

Yesterday, there was a demonstration in Bay Ridge by Back the Blue , a march in support of the huge majority of police who are good. Bay Ridge is a natural site for such a demonstration. We’re historically conservative by brain dead NYC lib standards. A number of active duty and retired cops and fire live here. They’re our friends.

The BLM thugs, with some who appeared to be Antifa, a group that some thinks does not exist, somehow found their way here, since they couldn’t bear to let Back the Blue be.

They tried to provoke at every step. They marched and biked down local streets, chanting ” NYPD Suck My Dick ” ( oh yes they did. ) They threw vomit at former City Councilman Marty Golden. They abused customers dining outside. At 11pm, they set a waste basket afire. One idiot who threw a helmet got tazed for his trouble, and he didn’t like it that much.

The thing that most locals are talking about is that they actually burned an American flag. It was caught on film, at Fourth Avenue and 65th, by these fine people who supposedly don’t hate America.

We’re not used to such scenes here, but there you are.

Congratulations to the NYPD, who were exceptionally patient. Congratulations to the Back the Blue protesters, or 99% of them anyway. Some were out of line.

And may bad fortune follow BLM for a hundred million eternities. It is one of the more strange and pernicious movements we’ve seen in the past couple of decades.

425 Responses to “BLM Bums Bum Rush Pro Cop Rally In Brooklyn”

  1. good post

  2. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/18/trump-and-fox-news-continue-to-stoke-a-race-war-in-the-streets/

  3. There have also been counter protests to BLM marches. I don’t think good behavior has been a universal atribute from the Back the Blue or BLM folks, but the BLM and affiliated lunatics have taken the cake in the misbehavior statitics.

  4. even the 3rd reich friendly daily mail regard the tazing of a black man as shocking
    pushed tackled tazed , cuffed like an animal . Guess that’s what he is to many white folks

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8515899/Shocking-video-shows-NYPD-officer-TASING-Black-Lives-Matter-protester-pushing-him.html

  5. kurt

    What do you think about the behaviour of the people Phantom refers to in his post ?

  6. //a march in support of the huge majority of police who are good.//

    Probably a better move would be simply to publish the statistics – through the press or a poster or ad campaign or whatever: how many cops are attacked doing their job, how many injured and killed, the low crime rate compared to other cities, etc. set against the number of cases of bad cops abusing their power etc. I’m sure the NYPD would look good in any data comparision.

    Problem in the polarised US is of course that there’s few media considered neutral to carry the story.

  7. no evidence for it colm
    his thread is diametrically opposed even to the daily mail
    which tell you all you need to know , doesn’t it ?

  8. Are you accusing Phantom of lying ?

  9. PS – This will annoy you kurt. I agree with Tucker’s takedown of AOC 🙂

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-defund-police

  10. Kurt

    Here is proof of your BLM burning the flag at the demo

    https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/07/13/pro-police-protesters-face-off-with-black-lives-matter-protesters

    There is video of the tazed man throwing a helmet at people beforehand. The NYPD were not going to take chances with him.

  11. AOC is genuinely stupid.

    She has cost her part of NYC jobs, etc.

    She is the sex kitten of brain dead leftism.

    Her economics, her math don’t make any sense at all. It’s hard to believe that she has a college degree.

  12. A BLM friendly account of the march mentions the obscene chant by BLM

    He also writes not only of the flag burning, but of another incident where a BLM marcher stole a flag from a pro police demonstrator and then tore it to shreds

    The anti American, cop hating BLM came looking for a fight on Sunday. Back the Blue didn’t crash a BLM march, it was the opposite.

    https://inthesetimes.com/article/22660/blue-lives-matter-brooklyn-new-york-black-police-protest

  13. “There is video of the tazed man throwing a helmet at people beforehand. The NYPD were not going to take chances with him.”

    Beforehand. Is there any evidence to suggest that he posed a risk to officers or the public when he was tazed (which defenders of police brutality were arguing is a lethal weapon)?

  14. The fact that he threw a substantial object when completely unprovoked, is proof that he was a risk to the officers who were about to arrest him.

  15. He was a risk when he threw the object. Not afterwards. When he was tazed he wasn’t throwing the object. When he was tazed he was unarmed. So the police used potentially lethal force on an unarmed man.

  16. The perp was the instigator- twice.

    Before he was tazed, he was approaching the cops in a menacing way , screaming, when police were dealing with other troublemakers. The DM video shows this

    Entirely justified use of this tool.

    Very bad day for BLM, very bad look.

  17. The officer’s actions are under review, as the use of a taser may very well have been excessive.
    However, I’d point to the double standard in Time Magazine’s account which was entitled Pro-Police Agitators v. Black Lives Matters protesters.

  18. So police can now use lethal weapons on people who are “menacing”? Does that mean being big and black?

  19. I’d have a lot more sympathy to “a march in support of the huge majority of police who are good”, if the person promoting it wasn’t also defending police brutality as “entirely justified”.

  20. Under the Departments own guidelines a taser can be used against someone actively resisting or actively aggressive, or someone in danger of harming themselves or others. I have not watched the video but from what I’ve read I don’t think the standard was met here.

  21. Seamus

    You’d have zero sympathy for any pro police march in any nation at any time.

    I notice no comment from you or Kurt on the flag burning and other flag destruction.

    I thought that BLM wasn’t an America hating organization? How about some twisted logic saying that burning the flag is not evidence of hating the country. This could be funny.

    And the torching of the waste basket by BLM? No criticism of that either? Guess that’s Ok too. Not fair to say that that’s a bad thing.

  22. With some who appeared to be Antifa

    Appeared to be ‘Antifa?’

    How did they ‘appear’ to be ‘Antifa?’ the way they were dressed? because they had a lighter shade of skin? because you think they are/ want them to be?

    Really, really scraping the bottom of the bogeyman barrel there.

    A group that some thinks does not exist

    The bogeyman exists but only as an abstract concept and loose ideology and of course, inside Phantom.

  23. “I notice no comment from you or Kurt on the flag burning and other flag destruction.”

    So much for American exceptionalism in terms of free speech. I thought America was so much more civilised because you get to do this. Free speech and all. And I thought criticising people for their speech is now a no no or “cancel culture”.

    “I thought that BLM wasn’t an America hating organization?”

    I don’t think I’ve ever said that. So can I now hold you responsible for everything Patrick says?

    “Not fair to say that that’s a bad thing.”

    Colm made the point a few weeks ago about Patrick that he lets himself down. He makes, at times, a sensible point but undermines it with ludicrous bullshit.

    You are doing the same thing here. You are not just criticising BLM protestors. You are defending police brutality, and then pretending that brutality is acceptable.

  24. Also, in a related matter, two Catholic churches were burned this weekend. One was in California and the other in Florida. You may remember that BLM said that “white Jesus” must be destroyed. I predicted this.

  25. Antifa headquarters do exist. They are inside Phantoms head, where they appear to be living rent free.

    Cue mention the two sisters in t-minus 10, 9, 8…

  26. The church burned in Florida was burned down by a guy who claimed he was on a mission from God, and appears to be mentally ill.

    The California one was likely targeted, it had a statue stolen from it last week.

  27. Seamus

    I didn’t say that the bums don’t have the right to burn the flag.

    I condemn them for it though. What is legal is not necessarily acceptable

    You guys think that BLM was in the right on Sunday, including in their multiple and sustained provocations and in their unprovoked violence. Your only criticism is for the police who kept things under control

  28. Charles – there is a writer Shaun King who wrote that, I don’t think it was a BLM comment. Also there is no indication that either Church fire was related. The Florida fire was a white guy apparently off his meds.

  29. I thought a taser was a deadly, lethal weapon as the ATW jury established in the police shooting dead of Rayshard Brooks?

    Does this now mean that a taser isn’t a lethal weapon and the killing of Rayshard Brooks wasn’t justified?

  30. “Your only criticism is for the police who kept things under control”

    No my major criticism is against brutal cops. You can’t defend the majority of good cops while also defending the bad ones.

    Again if you had posted a measured, reasonable argument I would have agreed with you. But instead you spoilt it with over the top bullshit.

  31. A taser can kill, as can a night stick.

    Boy the what about this and what about that guys are earning their shilling today.

    The one thing that they are not doing is criticizing their precious BLM pets for anything

    They’re always innocent!

  32. Antifa certainly exists but more as a type than an easily identified singular group. And that type seems to have been involved in the Bay Ridge incident.

  33. Everything I say here is documented.

    Kurt implied otherwise, but as usual he knows nothing

  34. “BLM pets”

    So they are animals now? We get closer to the issue. Can’t let uppity niggers get too uppity.

  35. Isn’t Shaun King associated with BLM in some way? I thought so.

    The Cali fire was also a white guy, like so many BLM/Antifa inspired kooks, who drove his car into the church and then set it alight.

  36. Don’t say that they exist

    Paul gets so angry

    He will send a hundred angry notes now

  37. “Everything I say here is documented.”

    Except it isn’t. The man was not tazed for throwing a helmet. He was tazed for videoing the police.

  38. The man who threw the helmet should have been arrested. Whether the use of the taser was justified is unclear.

  39. Seamus

    Keep talking

  40. “The Cali fire was also a white guy, like so many BLM/Antifa inspired kooks, who drove his car into the church and then set it alight.”

    That is the Florida one, who drove his van and set the place alight. He does appear to be crazy. As far as I am aware they haven’t caught the person or people who did the California one.

  41. He was not tazed for videoing any police

    There might have been hundreds of people videoing the police, in plain sight, with no incident

    The police are videoed all the time now, including by themselves with body cams. You don’t know that?

  42. It’s early here. I need a cuppa coffee! 🙂

  43. “He was not tazed for videoing any police”

    Well he wasn’t tazed for throwing the helmet, which happened before (and there doesn’t seem to be a pursuit leading up to the taxing). So why was he tazed? Was he uppity as well?

  44. Charles – the BLM crowd is so loosely organized I frankly don’t know if he merely promotes them (when not self-promoting) or is what might be called a leader among the group. There is some angst there with him over odd fundraising and his Talcum X issue. I’m not sure if the guy in Florida belongs to any group.

  45. If I were a cop now I’d keep any taster issued to me in a locker. It has always been a problematic tool.

  46. Seamus – I don’t think the guy was tazed for videotaping the police.

  47. “If I were a cop now I’d keep any taster issued to me in a locker.”

    Indeed. A spoon would be a useless police tool.

  48. “Seamus – I don’t think the guy was tazed for videotaping the police.”

    I’ve watched the video. It is what he is doing when he is attacked.

  49. Seamus

    You are flailing

    And I note that the usual suspects have no criticism of anything that BLM did on Sunday

    The burning of the flag would I think offend / anger all Americans here, and Seamus thinks it wrong to criticize that act

  50. Your friend approached the cops in a menacing way in a tense situation

    That is what the video shows

  51. Antifa certainly exists but more as a type than an easily identified singular group

    Yes, anyone who opposes fascism is by definition ‘Antifa’

    Paul gets so angry

    Phantom, judging by the anger and venemous tones of your last number of comments on similar topics it’s clear who’s the angry one here. If you don’t agree with what I say try making an argument rather than the usual snide, vacuous jibes we’re used to from you.

    BLM pets

    Good to see that black people along with Muslims are now ‘pets’

    Go and take a long look at yourself.

  52. Mahons, your comments on tasers are considered and balanced.

  53. “Seamus thinks it wrong to criticize that act”

    I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticise people’s speech. I have no issue with “cancel culture”. I’m simply pointing out hypocrisy.

    “And I note that the usual suspects have no criticism of anything that BLM did on Sunday”

    I have plenty of criticism on them. However you put up a post and I am disagreeing with part of that post. Did I disagree with your criticism of them?

    And you that insecure that if everyone doesn’t agree with you, and say that they agree with you, that you have to cry about it?

  54. Seamus – loads of people were filming the police (a nation of camera crews). The cops don’t taster them for that. He had at a minimum thrown a helmet catching their attention. I don’t know if his post toss activities justified the taster use but let’s not suggest he was singled out merely for filming.

  55. “Your friend approached the cops in a menacing way in a tense situation”

    By menacing you mean being big and black?

  56. “Seamus – loads of people were filming the police (a nation of camera crews). The cops don’t taster them for that.”

    But given that it is what he was doing in the immediate time before being tazered it is a reasonable explanation.

    In reality the more likely explanation is that the trigger happy little Stasi did it because he could.

  57. Your friend approached the cops in a menacing way in a tense situation

    Pre emptive use of a potential deadly weapon based on perception is now justified?

  58. I don’t think so. It suggests he was tasered for merely videotaping which wasn’t the case. It is under investigation, I suspect it will be found to be excessive but I think a mistake is made in trying to portray people as wholly innocent victims.

  59. I don’t think anyone is suggesting he is a wholly innocent victim. It has been established that earlier he had thrown a helmet at people. It is most likely that the guy is not a pleasant person. But that doesn’t change the facts that he was not acting wrongly, dangerously or unlawfully in the moments leading up to his tazering. And all he seems to be doing is videoing the police.

  60. If an officer reasonably perceives a menacing situation then use of tasered is not prohibited. I’m not sure that standard was met in this circumstance.

  61. Mahons, my comment was in direct response to the comment above it.

  62. There’s a lot of intolerance, prejudice and narrow minded thinking going on on this thread. It seems to mirror the hostile culture around this issue that is poisoning the US, and to a lesser extent the UK.

  63. Charles
    //Also, in a related matter, two Catholic churches were burned this weekend. One was in California and the other in Florida. You may remember that BLM said that “white Jesus” must be destroyed. I predicted this.//

    Charles, having looked at these two incidents is nothing to link them to BLM.
    You’re usually a reasonable voice here mate. There is plenty to criticize BLM for without jumping to conclusions.

  64. Even those who have performed a criminal act don’t deserve to be tasered if the circumstances don’t justify it. One of the problems in group confrontations is that escalating matters can lead to excessive responses.

  65. No worries Paul. I won’t taser you.

  66. I wouldn’t expect you to my friend.

    Now, Phantom…..

  67. Although I disagree with Charles that thereally is sufficient evidence linking BLM to the two fires, I suspect that part of the uptick in lawlessness and racial rhetoric will result in attacks on churches (and probably from nuts on each side of the racial divide).

  68. I’ve noticed that these protest threads expose a very different mentality & mindset between the Americans & Europeans.

  69. “Charles, having looked at these two incidents is nothing to link them to BLM.”

    I think the most likely scenario is that the California one is linked to the ongoing situation. The founder of the Mission, Junípero Serra, was a less than pleasant individual and has become a focal point of anger in parts of California.

  70. Dave, I thank you for your comment, and would respond by saying that BLM, or Shaun King anyway, has put out the call to vandalize churches. That some kooks heed these calls is unfortunate. BLM is a loose organization, and it is plausible that King does not speak for anyone but himself, as Mahons points out. So point well taken mate.

  71. Dave, I thank you for your comment, and would respond by saying that BLM, or Shaun King anyway, has put out the call to vandalize churches. That some kooks heed these calls is unfortunate. BLM is a loose organization, and it is plausible that King does not speak for anyone but himself, as Mahons points out. So point well taken mate.

  72. Shaun King anyway, has put out the call to vandalize churches

    I don’t think he did Charles, he gave his opinions on Euro imagery of Christ:

    https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1275106946916499456

    However, I concede that some may interpret this as to what you say above, as you have yourself.

  73. I think it is a fair charge against Shaun King. He said about the statues “tear them down”. Not that the Church should consider taking them down and replacing them.

  74. Paul 1

    Now there you have said something that makes sense

    A number of Europeans here are very comfortable with political violence by people whose causes they support. Far fewer Americans support political violence, Though an increasing number of Democrats are pretty silent on the matter

    I’ve condemned police and prosecutor misconduct in considerable detail a number of times, but there are a number here who AFAIK have never given even the slightest criticism of BLM or Antifa for anything at any time

  75. Indeed he did.

  76. Indeed he did refers to Shaun King tearing them down comment.

  77. Phantom

    Pelosi would not condemn the mob tearing down the Columbus statue in Baltimore. She said “people will do what people will do.” Weak as water she is.

  78. That is true Charles. A terrible comment by the daughter and sister of the former Mayors of that town.

  79. I have very little sympathy for individuals who get into deliberately confrontational contact with the police, who refuse requests to physically cooperate especially in volatile situations then complain when they are cuffed or injured or tasered during their hostile resistance. Its so easy now to exaggerate and fake scream I CANT BREATHE or shout about police brutality with an instamob filming it and ready to make it go viral as another potential George Floyd incident.

  80. I think it is a fair charge against Shaun King. He said about the statues “tear them down”.

    I concede that some may interpret this as to what you say above, as you have yourself.

    Now there you have said something that makes sense

    I always speak sense Phantom.

    As for the use of political violence, I’ve been absolutely transparent of my support of it in very particular circumstances

    I’ve condemned police and prosecutor misconduct in considerable detail a number of times

    Whilst qualifying you ‘condemnation’ by stating that eroge loyd was allegedly in pursuit of a crime, Rayshard Brooks had taken a ‘deadly weapon’ (which had immediately prior been used on him), etc.

    But there are a number here who AFAIK have never given even the slightest criticism of BLM or Antifa for anything at any time

    Yeah? Who are they? Instead of hiding behind general ambiguities why not name them and let them defend or justify what they allegedly did or didn’t say.

  81. Paul

    You are so completely lacking in self awareness that you don’t realize that AFAIK you have never criticized the racist and America hating BLM or antifa, and neither have any of your little buddies here.

    Yes, Nancy Pelosi, second in line for the presidency if something should happen to trump and pence, Could not bring it upon herself to condemn the toppling of the Columbus statue. Which among other things, is a hate crime against Italian Americans. She is disgusting.

  82. You are so completely lacking in self awareness that you don’t realize that AFAIK you have never criticized the racist and America hating BLM or antifa

    As usual that is an absolute untruth. Just two days ago I explained to Kurt that some BLM actions and protests should be criticised.

    And neither have any of your little buddies here

    Who are my ‘little buddies’ here?

  83. wow what a thread……. Violence in the name of politics is NEVER acceptable period.

    A tazer in the hands of someone not trained with it is a deadly weapon.

    If you throw something at the Cops they should and it would be Legal for that person to be shot by the cops.

  84. Phantom

    You don’t do your arguments any favour by snide little comments like the “little buddies” one. Its as stupid as someone referring to you and Patrick as “fellow Trump fans” because you happen on a specific issue to hold a similiar supportive view.

  85. Violence in the name of politics is NEVER acceptable period

    Yes it is, and you have defended it yourself Pat. Unless of course you disagree with the Second Amendment?

  86. “A tazer in the hands of someone not trained with it is a deadly weapon.”

    Are you saying that it isn’t a deadly weapon when the person is trained? That no one has ever died after being tazed by police?

    “If you throw something at the Cops they should and it would be Legal for that person to be shot by the cops.”

    Deadly force should only be deployed for the protection of life. If a police officer shoots someone in that circumstance then the police officer should be arrested and charged with murder or attempted murder.

  87. A bit of Texas logic. I was driving through west Texas last week, the most conservative part of the state, and I saw a billboard. It said, ” Stop Gun Violence, Arm Yourself.”

  88. Deadly force should only be deployed for the protection of life

    Yep, it’s my understanding that that’s the international norm.

  89. Colm

    They are acting as a swarming, coordinated pack. making the same arguments…and not commenting on the bad things done by BLM on Sunday. They deserve a little mockery.

    And Kurt either lied or was 100% wrong when he insinuated that I was wrong on any of the facts here. It is all documented. Plenty of witnesses, too. Yet he will never admit that he was wrong. Because this type never admits wrong, any more than Trump does.

  90. Apart from committed pacifists and conscientious objectors everybody else believes in violence for political reasons.

  91. Phantom

    The “swarm” disagreeing with you here over the last few hours is just Seamus and Paul. Hardly a coordinated pack 🙂

  92. Colm

    Not entirely true.

    I am no pacifist, but I would not use violence against Trump, or his supporters.Or against Communists or Nazis.

    I was in right next to the Westboro Baptist Church people one time, the worst you can find anywhere, and they were saying horrible things. I could have easily hit them but did not.

    Many here are very comfortable with political violence and have demonstrated that over time, in detailed conversations that we have had. Far more comfortable than most Americans are.

    Political violence of the BLM / Antifa type is always wrong. And where so called right wingers do it, they’re twice as wrong.

  93. They are acting as a swarming, coordinated pack. making the same arguments

    Who are? The only ones I can see arguing against you, and to a lesser extent Mahons, are Seamus, I and to a lesser extent Kurt.

    Why should any comment by us be against the BLM counter demo on Sun? You’ve spoken at length about it and we’ve been critical of BLM actions in the past, (another one of your untruths).

    This type never admits wrong

    Who are ‘this type?’ If you’re referring to me you’re either incorrect or blatantly being untruthful again

    As I said, you should take a good, long look at yourself.

  94. Colm

    For some reason, Flight 97 on Sept. 11 came to mind. The passengers voted and used violence to take back the the plane from the hijackers and crashed it in order to save lives and are considered heroes. Violence used for the greater good. It must be in the eye of the beholder.

  95. If someone throws something at cops it is not legal for them to shoot. However if the item thrown could be deadly (stones, petrol bottles) then that might be a different matter.

  96. I have never seen you give any criticism of BLM or Antifa.

    You’ve tried to pretend that Antifa doesn’t exist.

    You’ve been an apostle of political violence, including that against Pegida, for years here. This is what the record shows.

  97. Charles – it can’t be in the eye of the bolder, that standard is anarchy.

  98. BLM hunted down the Back the Blue people, and engaged in multiple wrong actions, including starting fires well after the others had gone home, all detailed here.

    No criticism at all from the usual suspects.

    What a pack of frauds.

  99. I have plenty of criticism on them. However you put up a post and I am disagreeing with part of that post. Did I disagree with your criticism of them?

    And you that insecure that if everyone doesn’t agree with you, and say that they agree with you, that you have to cry about it?

    Are you seriously that insecure that if people don’t verbally fellate you then you are going to turn like a little bitch. Seriously grow the fuck up.

  100. We see a lot of social media being used to coordinate protests, counterprotest etc. It is the new norm.

  101. *going to gurn

  102. It would be more productive to phrase arguments differently. For instance instead of stating certain people never citizens BLM why not ask is there anything that BLM has done that you are critical of. I suspect you’d find that absent a zealot that most people here would have some criticism.

  103. I have never seen you give any criticism of BLM or Antifa

    Then you’re blind.

    Just two days ago I explained to Kurt that some BLM actions and protests should be criticised

    You were on the thread.

    You’ve tried to pretend that Antifa doesn’t exist.

    More dishonesty:

    The bogeyman exists but only as an abstract concept and loose ideology and of course, inside Phantom.

    You’ve been an apostle of political violence

    More dishonesty. Over the years I’ve explained why I think political violence is justified in certain circumstances and condemned it in others.

    Including that against Pegida

    What I said about Pegida being chased down a Dublin street by a group of Dubs is if you’re a group of Polish / central European neo Nazis and you aggressively insult a Dubliner in their own city it’s probably not going to end well.

    I’d suggest some introspection for your dishonesty & snideness but I’ve a feeling it would do no good.

  104. If people say BLM has done no wrong, then you can make the more blanket statements.

  105. Mahons

    I agree. But the BLM/Antifa people think that their cause is as just as Todd Beamer did on Flight 97. I think that they are wrong.

    I think that’s why this abrogation of law and order in this country is so dangerous. It leads to moral relativism.

  106. Have you seen Paul, Kurt, Seamus criticize anything that BLM did this past Sunday?

    The flag burning, the other flag destruction, the setting of fires, the calling of names, the throwing of objects, the vulgar chants?

  107. I was going to put up a post about July 12 events in NI but their are virtually no unionists on the site on any regular basis which means there would pretty much not be a robust discussion.

  108. “Have you seen Paul, Kurt, Seamus criticize anything that BLM did this past Sunday?”

    Have you seen us support it?

  109. I think BLM is too broad to say it acts uniformly Charles.

  110. Have you seen Paul, Kurt, Seamus criticize anything that BLM did this past Sunday?

    No, but that’s a different premise from:

    I have never seen you give any criticism of BLM or Antifa

    Isn’t it? Dishonesty now tries to qualify its dishonesty.

  111. Paul

    You are disgusting.

    I stand by both comments.

    If I am wrong, show it.

  112. Phantom – this was a particular incident in which the angle they approached the story was in regards to the tasting incident which is not unreasonable. Silence on other parts of the story does not imply they condone other acts. Why not ask if there is anything people find disturbing other than the tasering? You might be suprised.

  113. “You are disgusting.”

    As opposed to the guy who thinks every uppity nigger should be tazed?

  114. You are disgusting.

    Perhaps, but I’m not a snide liar.

    If I am wrong, show it.

    No, you show it. Or maybe like your fellow American right-winger here you don’t think that the maxim quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur applies to you.

  115. Jesus, Phantom, you’re making some wild, untrue, sweeping statements here – and not for the first time.
    “… little buddies.. this type… the usual suspects…”
    Your anger is really coming through here, and it’s manifesting itself in nasty, snide comments that have no basis in truth.
    It’s the same pattern as the ‘discussion’ around ‘taking the knee’ – you went completely off the deep end then as well, and threw sweeping generalisations around then as well, though it must be said – you weren’t alone in that.
    Just to be clear, and to try and make sure you don’t make any more untrue comments about anyone else (at least until the next time you do it) – I support some of BLM’s objectives, but not all of them. And as regards their actions on Sunday – if things transpired as you said they did, then they should be condemned for it. As to your claim/azzertion/guess about the presence of ‘Antifa-types’ perhaps such claims should be verified before commenting. Clear?

  116. “You are disgusting.”

    You’ve lost it, mate. Maybe go for a walk or something, calm yourself down.

  117. mahons 223

    I have never seen any of these people give any criticism of BLM. Especially Kurt, who is an open supporter.

    I have spoken in detail of wrong things that BLM did in my neighborhood, and still no criticism by them.

    Here, I think that silence is truly consent to the tactics that I described. This is what they do at political protests in Europe, and this is what they think is OK here.

    If it were not for the NYPD, the Back the Blue people would have been beaten off the streets by the larger BLM crowd, as Pegida was beaten off the streets of Dublin.

    And that is exactly that the left wants for America. Defund the police, so that only gangs rule the streets. That’s not overstatement, that is the truth.

  118. This just in from our European correspondent, Phantom:

    This is what they do at political protests in Europe, and this is what they think is OK here.

    That’s not overstatement, that is the truth.

    You spelled ‘over-dramatic bullshit’ wrong.

  119. I have never seen any of these people give any criticism of BLM.

    Then, as Paul says, you are blind, perhaps wilfully so.

  120. And in the case of Pegida in Dublin, there was a comment on these pages before that Pegida event happened saying that they would be confronted and chased away.

    Many of us saw it.

    This is exactly that the left and BLM want for the US.

    Deny a platform to those that they disagree with.

  121. As Pegida was beaten off the streets of Dublin

    Let’s just be clear here, Pegida weren’t ‘beaten off the streets of Dublin’ A group of Polish / central Euro neo Nazis, (allegedly ‘Identity Ireland’s ‘Polish Division 🙂 ), were chased down a Dublin Street by a group of Dubs after the neo Nazis told the Dubs. ‘fuck you & fuck your Communism’

    Dishonesty enters Aberdonian mode.

  122. Kurt is a zealot on the issue and not in the same category (after years of being called liberals by some here I was touched he referred to us as Trump supporters). My guess is the event happening in your own neighborhood effects the ability to view dispassionately, which isn’t necessarily wrong.

  123. Let me put it this way, the BLM folks burning flags procatively and chanting NYPD Suck My Dick were offensive but not illegal. The BLM who tried to physically intimidate another protest were wrong and possibly illegal. Any BLM who threw objects were criminal. I suspect most would agree.

  124. Phantom
    How long have you been a supporter of Polish neo-Nazis?

  125. I suspect most would agree.

    Yes.

  126. I posted this video of right wing protestors in Dublin violently attacking a peaceful counter-demonstration on a different thread a few days ago inquiring as to what those who had previously commented about ‘protests being beaten off the streets of Dublin’ thought of it:

    https://twitter.com/RobertBohan/status/1281982639600046081

    There were no comments, obviously tacit support for it.

    I suspect most would agree

    Yes.

  127. Listen. When things happen near us we get a little more involved than when they are not. I don’t think it is fair to suggest that Phantom’s position is it is OK to use a taster on uppity you know what.

  128. I think it is as fair as about 90% of the stuff Phantom has accused others of on this thread.

  129. If Phantom insists on being dishonest about people’s positions it’s only natural someone will do the same to him.

  130. It was announced beforehand, including on these pages, that Pegida would be denied their right to demonstrate.

    Speaking to Trinity News, student Rory O’Neill, a member of the Trinity Socialist Workers’ Student Society (SWSS), who was present during the clashes, clarified that: “There were a lot of Trinity students, yeah… The SWSS bloc was about five of us, mostly Trinity, as part of a wider SWP/PBPA (Socialist Workers’ Party/People Before Profit Alliance) delegation.”

    According to The Irish Independant, one group of approaching Pegida supporters was “chased back down Talbot Street by a splinter group, some wearing masks and chanting, ‘Fascist scum, off our streets.’” They also reported that: “A security guard at a shop on Talbot Street described how a group of 15-20 men chased a man into the shop and began beating him.”

    O’Neill claimed that: “The anti-fascist demonstrators were following the standard policy of ‘No Platform for Fascists.’ This isn’t just a rhetorical or moral slogan, it means physically preventing fascists from organising and holding events on our streets.” —

    http://trinitynews.ie/2016/02/trinity-students-take-part-in-anti-fascism-protest-in-dublin-city-centre/

    If these guys had their way there would be ” no platform for fascists ” in the US also.

    And ” fascists ” would include anyone who supported the police, or any Trump supporters, etc.

  131. Paul

    I don’t support Pegida nor do I know much about them.

    Do you think that they should be allowed to demonstrate in Dublin or elsewhere without being molested?

  132. yo so tuesday is my busy day , been at my folks

    I’m no zealot mahons, all i accused you and phantom of were copying Trump TP’s
    I was literally comparing your comments with verbatim comments by trump on twitter !

    from the article I quoted at 4:42 am

    “Equally notable is the fact that not a single US citizen has ever been killed on American soil by an individual associated or affiliated with the anti-fascist group, but right-wing pundits and politicians continue to encourage right-wing vigilantes to defend their towns and cities from this imaginary threat.

    So as regards BLM, no-one is claiming their saints; but what phantom is suggesting and petem is that, any act any law-breaking or violence in USA is the dastardly work of BLM.

    This cannot be substantiated, its just a way or tarring every black person with a brush

    when you have the level of intensity on the race issue as we have today in USA ( thanks Trump ) you’re seeing local skirmishes all over the country, at interfaces, late at night or in the day, some groups , some loners, some organised, some just chance events
    some disaffected some bored , some angry and some reacting in unwholesome ways
    *( flag burning , throwing things, spitting etc )

    take a step back for goodness sake “What else dya expect?” .

    the hypocrisy of phantom is this :
    rather than understand, accept, recognise, give voice to the fact that much of the protests have been peaceful ; people black and white exercising 2nd amendment rights lawfully, what he’s focused on is narrow-minded pharasitical finger jabbing because certain people aren’t perfectly good citizens.

    Its a hopeless position as evidenced by this thread !

    I’m accused on for condemning anything, but I’m not defending any bad behaviour
    phantom I’ve not heard you once support even peaceful protest, that speaks volumes about how squeezed you are on this issue doesn’t it ?

  133. I didn’t say you did support Pegida.

    Pegida can demonstrate where they wish, just as people are free to demonstrate against them. Central Euro neo Nazis aggressively insulting Dubs in Dublin? not so much.

  134. So you oppose the ” No Platform for Fascists ” position by various groups?

    ( Fascist meaning anyone who disagrees with the student or leftist group on anything )

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform

  135. kurt

    What happened Sunday had nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

    I support the right of anyone to peacefully ( and hopefully respectfully ) protest.

    What happened close to me was not peaceful and it was not respectful. They created a lot of opposition that didn’t exist four days ago. They were very ugly.

  136. kurt

    When someone burns a flag, they are saying ” we have no respect for the country, we have no respect for those who love that country”

    It’s not a small thing. None of the BLM supporters AFAIK criticized the guy who burned the flag.

    It was legal but it was an act of great hatred.

    As I said here repeatedly, I wouldn’t support burning any nations’s flag. You burn bridges, too, when you do that.

  137. So it’s gone from ‘these guys…this type… etc’ never crticise to ‘none AFAIK

    Your change of tune is duly noted. Hopefully you won’t revert to sweeping statements again any time soon.

    I don’t support Pegida nor do I know much about them.

    It was me who asked,

    Phantom
    How long have you been a supporter of Polish neo-Nazis?

    I used your own logic to come to this conclusion. AFAIK you have never criticised Polish neo-Nazis, therefore, by your own standard, you must support them. Correct?

  138. Seimi, you’re sipping from the same dumb juice jug that Paul keeps by his desk at all times.

    Paul has made multiple excuses over the years for the thugs who beat up Pegida people. That’s tacit support for the ” no platform ” position. He just doesn’t have the backbone to come out and say that he supports ” no platform for those who we don’t like ”

    I oppose all Nazis, neo or not. I don’t know that Pegida is that.

    Pegida didn’t beat anyone up in Dublin that day. The thugs did.

    In the US, we’ve even allowed actual Nazis to march, under police protection. I don’t love that, but I understand it.

  139. “Paul has made multiple excuses over the years for the thugs who beat up Pegida people.”

    You are the only one on this thread making excuses for thugs.

  140. Phantom, I was just playing by your own rules. I didn’t see, nor can I remember you EVER say a bad word about Pegida, so it was safe to assume – by your own logic – that you support them.

    Seimi, you’re sipping from the same dumb juice jug that Paul keeps by his desk at all times.

    Why don’t you just knock off the snidey fucking insults? You always seem to do this when you get called out on this stuff. Just calm down, leave for a while, and when you return, if you’re not going to apologise for the things you wrote, at least acknowledge that they were bullshit, instead of leaving it to Mahons to make excuses on your behalf for your behaviour.

  141. I stand by everything that I said about BLM generally, BLM this past Sunday, and about the tolerance or support for political violence that exists here.

    It is all documented and correct.

    Your comparison was completely inept.

  142. And yes, there is a Grand Canyon sized divide between Europeans and Americans on the issue of political violence and intimidation as a tactic.

    I don’t think that any Americans here support denying any platform to those that they disagree with.

  143. Phantom

    Yes, everyone has the right to peacefully assemble, without fear or intimidation, including BLM. That they would try to deny that right to others like Back the Blue is telling.

  144. I know people who participated in the Back the Blue march including my friend former City Councilman Marty Golden.

    Son of Irish immigrants, received 49 commendations as an NYPD officer. He helped organize this positive, good, inclusive march.

  145. Charles

    You will be well aware of my feelings towards Trump.

    In or about 2016, a lifelong friend, a Trump supporter and I met at a Brooklyn street fair. He was and is a Trump supporter. He showed up wearing a red MAGA hat. He removed it, thinking that he might be hassled.

    I told him that if he put it back on, any bastards who attacked him would have both of us to deal with. He did.

    A lot of people want rights for themselves that they would deny to others. All through history, it has been thus, as with the ” founding fathers ” who kept slaves.

    If you support free speech, the litmus test is how you support speech for those who you disagree with. Any jerk supports free speech for those that he agrees with.

    Any group of individuals that seeks to deny a platform to those who seek to speak, in compliance with that nation’s laws, is to be condemned.

    I hope you’re keeping well. Stay out of the sun.

  146. https://twitter.com/i/status/1283066022195585024

    Typical ( passed on by NYC PBA )

  147. charles/phantom
    after the charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally
    Trump said there was “very fine people on both sides”
    was he right ?

  148. No

  149. And yes, there is a Grand Canyon sized divide between Europeans and Americans on the issue of political violence and intimidation as a tactic.

    The use of political violence has been discussed over and over again on these pages, and at least some of us are honest enough to admit that in very particular circumstances (to quote Paul) it is acceptable.
    However, I don’t think anyone has said that ‘political violence and intimidation as a tactic’ is acceptable.

  150. The Euros are clueless about certain things that are very natural here in the US, they just don’t get it.

    NUMBER 1 EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT PERIOD! Whether that is in Support of God or NAZI’s, BLM or Back the Blue.

    NUMBER 2 Violence is NEVER accepted in the Political Conversation on ANY SIDE for ANY REASON!

    For the past 4yrs I don’t think Phantom and I have agreed on more 2 or 3 things, but I agree 100% with his position on this thread.

  151. Well at least Phantom can be pleased that he has generated a very lively thread with 150 comments in just a few hours 🙂

  152. “NUMBER 1 EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT PERIOD! Whether that is in Support of God or NAZI’s, BLM or Back the Blue.”

    Unless you’re a Communist in the 1950s, or support the BDS movement.

    “NUMBER 2 Violence is NEVER accepted in the Political Conversation on ANY SIDE for ANY REASON!”

    Unless you legislate for gun control then all bets are off.

  153. NUMBER 2 Violence is NEVER accepted in the Political Conversation on ANY SIDE for ANY REASON!

    Just a few short weeks ago, you said that police and army should have shot protestors at the White House so your president could go for a photo op…

  154. It’s not 1952 any more.

    And I support the right of BDS to speak anywhere they wish to speak, without any penalty if they do. They should never try to compel others to engage in any boycott, but they should seek to influence, as any one else seeks to influence the issues of the day.

  155. “It’s not 1952 any more.”

    What year did American support for free speech start?

    “And I support the right of BDS to speak anywhere they wish to speak, without any penalty if they do. They should never try to compel others to engage in any boycott, but they should seek to influence, as any one else seeks to influence the issues of the day.”

    I don’t remember you ever condemning the anti-BDS laws (banning them from public contracts etc…). By your logic that means you support them.

  156. and

    Just a few short weeks ago, you said that police and army should have shot protestors at the White House so your president could go for a photo op…

    Throwing bottles at the AG is an act of violence not free speech and the AGs security would be justified in shooting those trying to harm him.

    You just emphasize your cluelessness.

  157. “Throwing bottles at the AG is an act of violence not free speech and the AGs security would be justified in shooting those trying to harm him.”

    Except that isn’t what happened. It was the clearing of peaceful protestors so the President could get his picture taken. And like a good little sheep you support that.

  158. You made no mention of the AG’s security. You said they should have shot them, referring to the police and army who were there. Try and be truthful.

    And was the ‘somebody threw something at someone’ theory not immediately dismissed as untrue? Even if it were true, shooting civilian, unarmed protestors just because one person threw a bottle is beyond overkill (pun most definitely intended).

    Anyway, long story short – you absolutely, 100% believe that Violence is accepted in the Political Conversation on ONE SIDE for ANY REASON!

  159. There were no credible eyewitness accounts of people throwing bottles at Barr as far as I know.

    The Trump administration is not a legitimate source of information.

  160. yes that is what happened. And yes I did not only mention it it was a large part of my argument.

    So you say I didn’t say it, and then you say it was argued that it wasn’t true….

    confused or just lying ?

    Anyway, long story short – you absolutely, 100% believe that Violence is accepted in the Political Conversation on ONE SIDE for ANY REASON!

    confused or just lying ?

  161. “yes that is what happened”

    You any evidence for that?

    “confused or just lying ?”

    You have long supported political violence, including pro 2nd Amendment violence, pro Israeli violence and state terrorism.

  162. If you support the existence of armed civilian militias, or if you support people carrying loaded guns in protests, then you support political violence.

    There aren’t two sides to this.

    The militia guns are sending a message and that is ” if I don’t get my way I will kill you “

  163. Your assertion that protestors should have been shot was made hours before you made any mention whatsoever of Barr’s alleged inclusion in the scenario.

    confused or just lying ?

    You’re correct about the AG excuse:

    They should have used bullets, what triggered the clearing of the street was the RIOTERS threw a bottle at the Atty Gen and he then gave the order to clear the street.

    just as I am correct that you were referring to the police and army.

    Patrick Van Roy, on June 5th, 2020 at 2:15 AM Said:
    Mahons, on June 5th, 2020 at 2:06 AM Said: Edit Comment
    Wait I just reread your comment. You are suggesting the military should have opened fire?

    Seimi, on June 5th, 2020 at 2:07 AM Said: Edit Comment
    Someone allegedly threw a bottle, and your response is, “They should have used bullets??”
    Seriously??

    They are standing outside the White House and they threw a bottle at the Attorney General.

    Yes they should have opened fire on them. If it had been Eric Holder that was walking in front of the White House I would still say the same thing.

    They were actively trying to physically harm a Cabinet Member.

    So, I was merely confused about your excuse. Are you merely lying about what you wrote?

  164. lmao…. I come to phantoms defense and he attacks me…. you’re an ass.

    Carrying a Weapon is not a threat, it’s a right, equal to Free Speech.

    You have long supported political violence, including pro 2nd Amendment violence, pro Israeli violence and state terrorism.

    No I’ve never supported violence, and I don’t support what the jews did I just don’t condemn it.

  165. and as usual when cornered about your beliefs you equate yourself with the Jews.

    The Irish aren’t the Jews. And whatever they did has no bearing on your philosophy.

  166. Patrick

    You have said that one of the reasons you support the 2nd amendment is so that ordinary civilians can use violence against a “tyrannical” govt. That is support for political violence.

  167. “and as usual when cornered about your beliefs you equate yourself with the Jews.”

    No just pointing out that you are a massive, massive hypocrite, and the most pro-terrorism person on here. And an anti-Semite. The proof is there. I said Israel. You said Jews. They aren’t the same thing. Only bigoted anti-Semites mistake the two.

  168. Interesting statement from Phantom here, when responding to my thoughts on kneeling:

    Phantom, on June 5th, 2020 at 3:04 PM Said:
    I also disagree with his assertion that the trend of kneeling is one of submission, of the losing side. It’s recognised as a sign of solidarity, and shouldn’t be misrepresented as something else.

    I have continued to think about this, and I do agree with that.

    Except where people try to pressure others into making the gesture.

    And except when the person kneeling is Colin Kaepernick, apparently.

    Patrick Van Roy, on July 14th, 2020 at 7:18 PM Said:
    and as usual when cornered about your beliefs you equate yourself with the Jews.

    Who equated who with ‘the Jews?’ I’m assuming you are referring to Seamus’ post, so can you point to where he said the Irish were the equivalent of the Jews?

    By the way, you do know that Israelis may well all be Jews, they are not ‘the Jews’, right? There are an awful lot of Jews who are not Israeli, nor would ever wish to be.

  169. You have said that one of the reasons you support the 2nd amendment is so that ordinary civilians can use violence against a “tyrannical” govt. That is support for political violence.

    wow in WWE speak that’s a piledriver ( incidentally a banned move nowadays )

    hows your back pat ? 😉

  170. If the government forces you to have health insurance, you get to shoot three cops.

    It’s in the constitution

  171. If you are asked to wear a face covering in enclosed areas you have the right to nuke the White House (it is of course your 2nd amendment right to own a nuclear missile) 🙂

  172. lol colm , i think pat is still out cold on the canvas after that takedown
    stretcher for Pat pls, stretcher . 😉

  173. Kurt

    You referred to Trump and Charlottesville. When he said good people on both sides he was referring to the original protestors on the right who were angry about the removal of the Confederate statue. That was before the protest was infiltrated by neo-nazis. Trump was not praising the Nazi element IMO.

  174. CHarley – I’m afraid he never clarified his remarks as you seem to wish he had.

  175. So you oppose the ” No Platform for Fascists ” position by various groups?

    I don’t know. If it means opposing people’s right to peacefully demonstrate against speakers / groups then no.

  176. Paul

    No that’s not what it means

    It is a position by leftist militant groups that they will not allow certain persons to speak at all. That if say a speech Has been arranged that they will disrupt it and stop the speech and drive the person away

    They are very clear on that point

  177. That’s not what your link says.

    Being a free speech advocate also means the freedom of speech to vocally argue against the point being made. You’d agree with that, yes?

  178. I think that very many leftist groups mean no platform, period

    If Donald Trump Was booked to make a speech at the Ulster Hall next week,in full compliance with the law of Belfast and the UK, I guarantee you that there will be plenty of people that would try to physically prevent that speech from happening.

    I don’t think that anybody has the right to disrupt a speech in any way.

    If Sinn Fein Spokesman wants to give a speech, unionist opponents don’t have the right to argue with them on that stage, and Vice versa. People are allowed to talk.

    Protest, yes.Everyone should have the right to do that, outside.

  179. I think heckling can be healthy. Politicans can’t expect that everyone at an event/rally will be a supporter. If the heckling is done with the intent to prompt a response that’s fine – but not if the heckling is done with the intent of drowning out the speaker fully.

  180. If you’re heckling at a private event, You should expect to be thrown out

  181. I think that very many leftist groups mean no platform, period

    Much like your ‘apparently ‘antifa’ comment above what ‘you think’ isn’t nessecarily reality.

    Interesting that you, as a self professed free speech titan, seem to be limiting free speech.

    O/T

    The EU’S secong highest court has dismissed the EU Comission’s challenge on Ireland/Apple taxation:

  182. Election rallies that are televised – are designed to secure the support of the wider public. they are not and should not be considered private events. It shouldn’t be easy for them to be the easy crowd propaganda pieces the politician seeking election wants them to be. Throwing someone out for daring to challenge the spin is an act of fascistic intolerance. All power to the heckler’s say I as long as they act withing the parameters of robust debate, not ‘No platforming’

  183. I agree with Phantom here. Many uni campuses here are no go areas for conservative speakers. Their speeches are totally shut down by leftist thugs. It’s “free speech for me but not for thee.” Berkley and Columbia are the worst offenders that come to mind.

  184. All power to the heckler’s say I as long as they act withing the parameters of robust debate, not ‘No platforming’

    Again, ‘the parameters of robust debate’ is a pretty fluid concept Colm. The old adage of ‘never argue with someone with a microphone’ is a difficult one to overcome. IMO, everyone as a right to counter protest and argue, peacefully.

  185. Paul

    What is it that you are trying to say?

    Focus, please.

    Colm 121

    Throwing someone out for daring to challenge the spin is an act of fascistic intolerance.

    So, if I will stick with Trump, who I despise. If Trump 2020 rents out a hall purpose of a rally, they should allow intruders to heckle the speech?

    Are you completely nuts?

    We have a few here who are Sinn Fein fans, perhaps are members of it. Does Sinn Fein allow unionists to heckle their speakers at events that they control?

  186. Phantom

    You missed my point. As far as I am concerned an election rally designed to win votes is not a private event. By all means have a private event and keep who you want out. But if you televise it to the wider public for purposes of influencing an election, its no longer private its an electoral event and if a voter who opposes you can gain lawful access by buying a ticket they have every right to.

  187. No.

    First, those tickets are often free.

    And second, the host sets the rules.

    If those rules are no heckling, then out you go, as quickly as possible.

    It is very foolish to think that this is in any way unfair.

    BTW, how often do conservatives heckle Labour events over there?

  188. What is it that you are trying to say?

    This,

    IMO, everyone as a right to counter protest and argue, peacefully.

    It’s pretty straightforward.

    Does Sinn Fein allow unionists to heckle their speakers at events that they control?

    I don’t think you’d see many unionists goin to a SF event in West Belfast regardless of whether they were ‘allowed’ or not. I personally have seen prominent SF members heckled by presumably loyalists at public events in Belfast City Centre and of course there was also this with a SF Mayor:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-4gdpne0yY

  189. ‘Sinn Féin fans.’
    It’s becoming more clear, day by day, that it is pointless trying to debate certain subjects with some people here. They become emotionally distraught over apparently trivial matters, and resort to saying silly things, because, apparently, it’s fun to say silly things.
    During events like West Belfast Talks Back, prominent Unionists/Loyalists are invited to speak and defend their positions. They are usually treated with the greatest of respect. But, they also understand that they will be put on the spot, and may also receive some heckling. Nobody throws out the hecklers, unless threats are made etc.

  190. Please don’t freak out, Seimi.

    We can be formal if that makes you not flare up.

    No one has a right to heckle at any private events.

    And -no one – has the right to deny ” any platform ” to others. As many on the hard left have openly and repeatedly said that they wish to do.

    If you ask anyone on the hard left, they will likely agree that this is their position without any fiddle dee dee about it at all.

  191. Heckling here in the US has turned from the mere objecting to a speakers comments, but an attempt to prohibit the speaker from commenting at all. And the worst offenders have been from the Left. There have been excruciating moments when Democrat politicians (ironically targeted by the far left) have seemed unable to deal with them lest they been seen as racist.

  192. Heckling here in the US has turned from the mere objecting to a speakers comments, but an attempt to prohibit the speaker from commenting at all. And the worst offenders have been from the Left. There have been excruciating moments when Democrat politicians (ironically targeted by the far left) have seemed unable to deal with them lest they been seen as racist.

  193. Seimi

    First off don’t take things personal, you seamus and paul are very welcome here. All of you have earned the respect of everyone to listen to what you have to say. The 3 of you are smart, good conversationalists, and consistent. I would have a meal with any of you.

    but my friend you all get just as touchy when the IRA is the topic as I do when guns or cops are the subject.

    Breathe deep my friend.

  194. They rushed the stage when Trump was campaigning in 2016 ( Chicago ?)

    They shut down a Bernie Sandders ( ! ) event in Seattle

    https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter-protesters/index.html

    This is criminal activity. This is what we are speaking about.

  195. Babar Ahmed spent 12 years in prison. He published a blog in support of the Taliban. He was arrested in the UK, held in prison for 8 years fighting extradition to the US, where he was locked awaiting trial in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison, before accepting a plea deal that would allow him to be sentenced to 12 years (pretty much time served). All for posting an opinion.

    I take it you believe the US should apologise and compensate Babar Ahmed?

  196. No one has a right to heckle at any private events

    Who said anything about ‘private events?’

    And -no one – has the right to deny ” any platform ” to others

    What? Are you suggesting that people have the ‘right’ to a platform whenever and were ever they wish?

    They will likely agree that this is their position without any fiddle dee dee about it at all.

    Will they? I’d suspect that their position would be a bit more nuanced than that.

    I don’t think Seimi’s ‘freaked out’ at all and it’s perfectly legitimate for him to refer to the emotiveness of some of your responses here.

  197. Mr. Ahmed should have been sent to Afghanistan where he could learn the value the Talib an places on Free Speech.

  198. Will you condemn the US criminalisation of free speech?

  199. IF this guy said things outside the US, the US should have no jurisdiction in the case of a non US national.

    I don’t believe in extraterritorial judicial power grabs, something that the US done more than a few times.

  200. But my friend you all get just as touchy when the IRA is the topic

    I don’t think we do Pat. There’s a few here who have either been directly Irish conflict or have been very close to it but when the topic does come up here I don’t think we’re ‘touchy’ at all about it and while the converstion is generally a robust one I can’t recall any of the Irish Republicans here being gratuitously snide or insulting.

    I for one could talk about it until the cows came home.

  201. “IF this guy said things outside the US, the US should have no jurisdiction in the case of a non US national.”

    Indeed. But jurisdiction isn’t the issue. Speech is. If he had been a New Yorker would US action have been acceptable?

  202. yes I know……, so can I 🙂

  203. You guys haven’t directly addressed the ” deny any platform ” position which you know full well is a thing in lefty/militant groups.

    When you address that, we will consider the meander.

    Should any individual or group be allowed to ” deny any platform ” to anyone at any time?

    And if so, when is it justified?

  204. “Should any individual or group be allowed to ” deny any platform ” to anyone at any time?”

    Yes. I think it is perfectly valid to be intolerant of the intolerant.

  205. when is it justified?

    threats and incitement to violence

  206. I think Seimi’s objection to Phantom’s “Sinn Fein fans” remark was more in the vein of seeing that remark as a similar one to Phantom’s “your little buddies” ones and others like it where he was accusing individuals on another discussion yesterday of being a one minded gang swarming against him. I don’t think it reflected a sensitivity around Irish Republican support.

  207. You guys haven’t directly addressed the ” deny any platform ” position which you know full well is a thing in lefty/militant groups

    No?

    You might want to have a look at my 12.15 above.

    I note that Seamus’ 2.55 above has been avoided twice.

  208. Well, well.

    Finally. Like pulling teeth.

    If a private hall wishes to host a Donald Trump speech to his supporters, you are saying that others should be allowed to prevent that speech from happening?

  209. Personally no. Because as much as I do not approve of Donald Trump and his politics I personally don’t believe he reaches that threshold. I think preventing the Klan from hosting a private meeting would be acceptable. Preventing Nazis and other actual fascists etc… would be acceptable to me.

  210. If it’s a private event then ‘others’ wouldn’t be allowed. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the ‘private’ adjective.

    Now, how about you address Seamus’ 2.55?

  211. Phantom

    Its not pulling teeth. That’s a very sanctimonious attitude. You are developing a very smug and superior attitude with your views on matters like this and on other discussions recently. Its just people here expressing different opinions than you. We don’t all have to match your exacting parameters on political speech and topics.

  212. Seamus

    There would be plenty of people who would think that Trump should be denied a platform, and that he is as bad as the KKK

    They did try to deny him a platform in Chicago, they absolutely would do it now.

  213. And in my opinion they would be wrong to do so.

  214. Colm

    This was harder than pulling teeth.

    They were playing word salad games before.

    I had to ask the question a number of times before Seamus eventually spoke to it.

  215. Seamus

    Appreciated.

  216. I note that Seamus’ 2.55 above has been avoided twice four times.

    They were playing word salad games before

    No Phantom, you just didn’t get the answer that you wanted to get. It was me you asked the question to and I answered it. Seamus’ position is a different premise to your ‘no platform’ question.

    That’s a very sanctimonious attitude. You are developing a very smug and superior attitude with your views on matters like this and on other discussions recently

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticed the arrogance and snideness.

  217. Phantom

    As Paul has stated, they, and I aren’t playing word Salad games, just expressing views in ways that don’t match what you consider acceptable. Just as you and I have different views on what is considered ‘Private events’ and the role if any of hecklers. We just disagree on detail. Its not a matter of failing to answer. Its each of us having our own answers on what we consider to be the rules, morals and parameters of free speech.

  218. I haven’t ‘freaked out’ at all over anything here. I was specifically referencing your own histrionics here over several days, across several threads – so much so that another poster had to speak up and give an excuse on your behalf. Don’t now try to come across as a paragon of calm and relaxed thinking and reason.
    Both Colm and Paul were correct – it’s your patronising, snide little asides, almost always delivered when your called out on shit, that annoy. Your dramatics on this and other threads have been embarrassing.
    And you have a cheek to refer to getting answers from others as ‘pulling teeth.’ The King of obfuscation and double talk, full of snipey little names and insults, but rarely a direct answer to a direct question.
    PaTroll, I don’t behave anything like Phantom has here, when the IRA are mentioned. In fact, if you ask any of the Republicans on this site about the Troubles, you will always get honest answers back. You may not like the answers you get, but we don’t wet our pants, call people names and run away from giving our reasoning, as we see it.

  219. An event in a public street is not private.

    Though no one has any right to drive people from the street.

    An event in a hall paid for and controlled by a host is by definition a private event. The host sets the rules at such events, subject to the local law.

    If events at private, controlled venues are not private, then words mean nothing at all.

    No one has any right to heckle or to do anything else antisocial at a private event. The host has full right to give offenders the boot. Which in this country happens almost all the time, correctly so.

  220. Though no one has any right to drive people from the street

    No but they do have a right to peacefully protest against them?

    No one has any right to heckle or to do anything else antisocial at a private event. The host has full right to give offenders the boot

    Who hear has said anything to the contrary?

    I note that Seamus’ 2.55 above has been avoided twice four five times.

    Seimi, 100% on your 3.37

  221. *here

  222. Mr. Ahmed was not convicted of a speech violation. However I think he was unfairly held without charge for too long.

  223. “Mr. Ahmed was not convicted of a speech violation.”

    He wasn’t convicted of speech violation, but that is what he was imprisoned for. He, in written word, supported the Taliban. And was put in prison for it.

  224. He was convicted for expressing an opinion on a blog Mahons?

  225. I claim no expertise on this case.

    I don’t think that the UK or any other country should extradite someone to the US for expressing an opinion.

    I don’t think that it’s illegal here to support the Taliban. It should be legal to support them. I imagine that some do.

    I’ve seen people openly support Islamic Iran here, and nothing happens to them.

  226. I believe he pled guilty to supporting terrorism. Not for suggesting that the Taliban was good, but rather for providing support for terrorism through his cyber-jihad is activities. Allow me to write it again, he pled guilty.

  227. He was ably defended, and his extradition passed the review of both the US and UK Courts. My main issue is the holding of him for so long without charge.

  228. It’s my understanding he was convicted because of views expressed on a blog? If that’s the case it goes against every principle of free speech that some hear propose to cherish.

    Allow me to write it again, he pled guilty

    Yes, he took a deal which effectively meant that the time he had spent in prison was his sentence.

  229. I’d need to know the worst things that he said.

    But if he never set foot in the US, and was talking about Afghanistan in England, what right does the US have to ask for him to be sent there?

  230. “I believe he pled guilty to supporting terrorism. Not for suggesting that the Taliban was good, but rather for providing support for terrorism through his cyber-jihad is activities. Allow me to write it again, he pled guilty.”

    After spending 12 years in prison, large parts of it in solitary confinement. If you were locked in prison for 12 years, had a deal put on the table in front of you saying they will let you out now if you plead guilty, but potentially lock you in prison for life if you don’t, and then see if you plead guilty or not.

    “I’d need to know the worst things that he said.”

    He put up a series of blog posts (pre 9/11 I might add) supporting the Taliban, and encouraging people to support the Taliban.

  231. I would imagine he was supporting Taliban attacks on American troops so with the American “War on terror” doctrine in place since 9/11 the Americans would regard him as n accesory to the terrorist enemy and therefore liable for extradition as they have done with Jihadi supporters anywhere across the globe.

  232. “Allow me to write it again, he pled guilty.”

    So did Otto Warmbier.

  233. I’d need to know the worst things that he said

    You’re being unusually coy in your ability to research an issue, however:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/12/babar-ahmad-jihad-bosnia-us-police-interview

    He expressed support for the taliban government of Afghanistan on a website. Pretty much against any tenet of free speech the FS defenders here claim to adhere to.

  234. Phantom – I believe the extradition basis (accepted by the UK and US Courts) was that one of his servers was in the US.

  235. I would imagine he was supporting Taliban attacks on American troops

    The Judge at his trial specifically stated that he had never supported Al Queda or Osamin Bin Laden.

  236. mahons

    That’s unacceptable to me.

    Too clever by half.

  237. His conviction was not for expressing support. And there was no indication his plea was due to duress.

  238. Phantom – if I recall his lawyers argued to the Courts that the grounds for extradition might be unacceptable to you personally but the Courts ruled that the standard would have to be the law as it is written.

  239. “His conviction was not for expressing support. And there was no indication his plea was due to duress.”

    So being kept in a Supermax prison (without being convicted) in solitary confinement (which is frankly tantamount to torture) isn’t duress?

  240. No one said anything about duress. He took a deal which meant the the time he had spent in prison was his sentence against the prosecution’s life request.

    I’m well aware of what his conviction was. I outlining what he actually did and don’t think that the charge matches his actions.

  241. No. It is not.

  242. So if you were to be locked in prison for 12 years, without conviction, and held in a Supermax for two years, in solitary confinement, and they offered to let you out if you plead guilty, then would that be duress?

  243. No. Is there an argument being made here that he was innocent?
    I recognize he became a cause celebre in the UK among certain people but he was guilty and pled so.

  244. “No. Is there an argument being made here that he was innocent?”

    No. There is an argument is that he was criminalised for his speech. Which apparently can’t happen in the ‘Merica.

    “I recognize he became a cause celebre in the UK among certain people but he was guilty and pled so.”

    Otto Warmbier plead guilty. Was he guitly?

  245. Did he only express support for the Taliban?

    Did he incite murder or anything like that?

    I don’t know what the exact crime is.

    The Taliban is disgusting but I don’t see why it would be illegal to express support for them

    In the US, people openly express support for Naziism and Communism, and the Taliban is in the same conversation with those evils

  246. “Did he only express support for the Taliban?”

    No he expressed support for them, and encouraged others to do the same. He was charged with providing material support (because they argued that people were encouraged by those articles to donate money to the Taliban) to terrorists.

  247. He solicited money for them (even 9 months after 9/11). Published training materials in terrorism. He was not writing an Oped piece.

  248. What training materials did he publish?

  249. Otto was not guilty as you and I know. Mr. Ahmed was guilty as you and I know.
    All defenses he had were available to his lawyers and he had a very lenient judge at his sentencing. Any argument that the plea was under duress or the crime was mere speech could have been made, but wasn’t in Court, merely in the media.

  250. “Otto was not guilty as you and I know. Mr. Ahmed was guilty as you and I know.”

    Otto Warmbier almost certainly was guilty of what he was accused of and plead gulty of. He did steal that sign. And he plead guilty. Which is your central argument with Babar Ahmed.

    And Ahmed wasn’t guilty. There is no evidence that he knowingly provided actual material support to terrorists. He supported the Taliban and was put in prison for 12 years because he had the wrong opinion. ‘Murica.

    “Any argument that the plea was under duress or the crime was mere speech could have been made, but wasn’t in Court, merely in the media.”

    Because the court would have rejected it. Because, while it was mere speech, it was illegal speech.

  251. Otto may very well have been guilty of taking down a poster but I don’t think even you would suggest it was in conspiracy with the Methodist Church and the CIA. His confession was at a press conference orchestrated by North Korea and I don’t think any reasonable person would suggest it was not made under duress.

  252. “Otto may very well have been guilty of taking down a poster but I don’t think even you would suggest it was in conspiracy with the Methodist Church and the CIA. His confession was at a press conference orchestrated by North Korea and I don’t think any reasonable person would suggest it was not made under duress.”

    Yes, but I would say that no reasonable person would suggest that locking a guy in prison for 12 years without a crime, including two years in solitary in a Supermax (which is pretty much torture) and then saying you will let him go if he pleads guilty, but he may get life (in that torturous Supermax) if he doesn’t, would a reasonable person say that is not made under duress? And if that isn’t duress then what is?

  253. Ahmed pled guilty to providingaerial support to the Taliban, using websites to raise money recuit fighters and provide equipment. His guilty plea was entered in a Court of law while represented by his own counsel.

  254. Was he locked away without a crime? I think it was locked away without a trial, and he fought and delayed extradition. Although prosecutors sought a longer sentence it wasn’t an either or situation. I should clarify any plea is made under some sort of duress but the issue is is it unlawful duress.

  255. Ah, they ” forgot ” those details.

    They thought that no one would look it up, and that we would buy that the honorable gentleman was jailed only for exercising speech.

  256. People do express support for Taliban, Iran, the Cuban government and similar causes every day here without getting into trouble.

    I’ve heard that kind of conversation on the radio here.

    What a fake, fake example.

    For shame.

  257. Ahmed pled guilty to providing material support to the Taliban, using websites to raise money recruit fighters and provide equipment.

    Seamus

    This is all untrue? He didn’t use websites to do any of those things?

  258. “They thought that no one would look it up, and that we would buy that the honorable gentleman was jailed only for exercising speech.”

    He was jailed for excerising speech. Just that speech was illegal. Which you are pretending doesn’t happen in ‘Murica.

  259. I think that someone just got busted.

  260. “I think that someone just got busted.”

    Nope. He supported the Taliban. The US decided that was illegal. And he was convicted of that illegal speech. So much for American free speech.

  261. Seamus

    You were asked what the facts of the case were. I didn’t know the facts, and said so.

    Did you willfully conceal from the rest of us that he recruited for and otherwise gave aid to the Taliban or were you unaware of the facts?

    This is a serious question.

  262. “This is all untrue? He didn’t use websites to do any of those things?”

    There is no evidence that it provided recruitment or equipment to the Taliban. Mahons is making that up. In the same way he made up that it provided training materials, but was unable to show what training materials it provided.

    It supported the Taliban. It encouraged other people to support the Taliban.

    ‘Murican free speech put him prison for it.

  263. “Did you willfully conceal from the rest of us that he recruited for and otherwise gave aid to the Taliban or were you unaware of the facts?

    This is a serious question.”

    No. Mahons made that up. There is no evidence he did any of those things.

  264. Did he encourage others to send material aid of any kind to the Taliban?

    Did he encourage people to join the Taliban?

  265. “Did he encourage others to send material aid of any kind to the Taliban?”

    Not that I am aware of. He encouraged people, as far as I am aware, to support the Taliban in order to set up an Islamic State in Afghanistan.

    “Did he encourage people to join the Taliban?”

    Not that I am aware of.

  266. If anyone urged others to send money or arms or people to the Taliban, that would be crossing a very bright line.

    That would be aid, what nearly anyone would see as an illegal act.

  267. “If anyone urged others to send money or arms or people to the Taliban, that would be crossing a very bright line.”

    Before 9/11?

    “That would be aid, what nearly anyone would see as an illegal act.”

    Yes, an illegal form of speech.

  268. Seamus seems to think the fact he was not aware of things affords him the opportunity to claim things have been made up. Babar’s plea acknowledged that he solicited and conspired to provide funds and personnel to the Talib an regime in Afghanistan and that heard others recruited men to travel to Afghanistan for training as sought gas masks to send abroad. He admitted to soliciting funds.

  269. “Babar’s plea acknowledged that he solicited and conspired to provide funds and personnel to the Talib an regime in Afghanistan and that heard others recruited men to travel to Afghanistan for training as sought gas masks to send abroad. He admitted to soliciting funds.”

    Yes. To avoid being tortured.

    Otto Warmbier also plead guilty. I’m sure we will all respect that guilty plea.

  270. In addition he admitted this solicitation was for support that would specifically targeted US residents. I learned this from reading the BBC article of December 10, 2013. I presume the full particulars of the plea would be available on the DOJ website for anyone who wishes to become aware.

  271. “In addition he admitted this solicitation was for support that would specifically targeted US residents. I learned this from reading the BBC article of December 10, 2013. I presume the full particulars of the plea would be available on the DOJ website for anyone who wishes to become aware.”

    Yes. To avoid being tortured. Torture someone long enough and they may admit to anything.

  272. This is an exceptionally juvenile argument.

    No one has ever said that free speech means that anything that is said or written, including threats, incitements, organizing material aid to criminals or terrorists, should be legal.

  273. “This is an exceptionally juvenile argument.

    No one has ever said that free speech means that anything that is said or written, including threats, incitements, organizing material aid to criminals or terrorists, should be legal.”

    So you support all the speech (and get really fucking pompous about it) except all the speech you don’t support.

  274. Seamus – it gives me no satisfaction to demonstrate that your accusation that I made it up was false. Well, ok, a little satisfaction. I’d also note that any actual abuse he received was apparently at the hands of the UK authorities who settled with him for 60,000.

  275. “Seamus – it gives me no satisfaction to demonstrate that your accusation that I made it up was false. Well, ok, a little satisfaction. I’d also note that any actual abuse he received was apparently at the hands of the UK authorities who settled with him for 60,000.”

    Supermax prison, and solitary confinement, are tandamount to torture. Locking someone in it is torture. People will do anything to escape that. And your only evidence for your claims is from a plea bargin derived from torturous behaviour by the authorities.

  276. “Seamus – it gives me no satisfaction to demonstrate that your accusation that I made it up was false.”

    You still haven’t shown what training materials he provided.

  277. You’d fail a high school debate with this.

    No one has ever said that you have free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. No one has every said you had the free speech right to tell someone ” go over there and punch mahons “. This needs to be said?

    And you most certainly did conceal from the group the allegations of material aid, too when you were asked what happened.

    Wow. Learn something new every day.

  278. “And you most certainly did conceal from the group the allegations of material aid, too when you were asked what happened.”

    No I didn’t. Because I don’t believe them to be true. There is no evidence of it, other than a torture extracted confession.

    “No one has ever said that you have free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. No one has every said you had the free speech right to tell someone ” go over there and punch mahons “. This needs to be said?”

    Assuming the material support thing is true you can provide material support to the Klan but not to the Taliban because ‘Murica.

  279. “And you most certainly did conceal from the group”

    Also considering a lot of the discussion on this thread (aside from you being a smarmy, snide bastard) started with your pretending that a BLM protestor was tazed for throwing a helmet. So you don’t get to accuse anyone of concealment.

  280. I didn’t conceal from the group.

    You did.

    You could have said that you did not think that it was true but you owed it to people to mention the most relevant charges.

    I said that I didn’t know anything about the case — a case that you chose to bring up and that you seemed to know enough about it so as to give strong opinions about the case.

  281. “I didn’t conceal from the group.”

    One idiot who threw a helmet got tazed for his trouble

    He was not tazed for throwing the helmet. You concealed that from the group, until someone put the video up.

    “You could have said that you did not think that it was true but you owed it to people to mention the most relevant charges.”

    No I didn’t. As soon as I said his name you could have googled it. I mentioned my perceptions of the case that he was convicted for supporting the Taliban, in violation of ‘Murican free speech. That is still my perception. His tortured confession doesn’t add anything to that.

  282. T

  283. He pled guilty to exactly what I wrote. You accused me of making it up which we both know was not true. Now that you are confronted with the facts you speculate that he only did so under torture.

  284. “He pled guilty to exactly what I wrote. You accused me of making it up which we both know was not true. Now that you are confronted with the facts you speculate that he only did so under torture.”

    What training materials did he provide?

  285. He did throw the helmet and he did approach the cops in a threatening way and those all led to him being tazed and arrested.

    You mentioned this unknown ( to many of us ) case and you intentionally left out the most relevant part of the story – which didn’t really have anything to do with his views, with his speech rights.

    Make all the insults you want, but what you did here today was exceptionally sneaky.

  286. “He did throw the helmet and he did approach the cops in a threatening way and those all led to him being tazed and arrested.”

    He did throw the helmet, but that is not why he was tazed. So your original statement was a misleading attempt to confuse people.

    “You mentioned this unknown ( to many of us ) case and you intentionally left out the most relevant part of the story – which didn’t really have anything to do with his views, with his speech rights.”

    No I didn’t. He was convicted for supporting the Taliban. That is the most relevant part of the story.

    “Make all the insults you want, but what you did here today was exceptionally sneaky.”

    The only insult I have made was pointing out that you have been a hypocritical, smarmy bastard. Which I think is a fair assessment.

  287. Babar Ahmad, the British citizen jailed in the US for providing material support to the Taliban at a time when they were harbouring Osama bin Laden, has returned home.

    Ahmad, 41, was sentenced in July last year after pleading guilty to providing material support to the Taliban and Chechen mujahideen by using websites to raise money, recruit fighters and provide equipment for the movements.

    A Home Office spokesman said: “Babar Ahmad was extradited to the US on 5 October 2012 for trial on terrorism offences. He subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material to support terrorism and was sentenced to 12 and a half years’ imprisonment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/babar-ahmad-returns-after-jail-sentence-in-us-for-supporting-terrorist-groups

    From the Guardian, hardly a right wing publication.

    Poor Seamus, caught out this day

  288. “Poor Seamus, caught out this day”

    No. He plead guilty. That has been established. After being in solitary in a Supermax, pretty much torture. What hasn’t been established is that he actually did it.

  289. Seamus – Now everyone knows your claim I made up what he pled to was….wait for it….made up. Pleasant Dreams.

  290. “Seamus – Now everyone knows your claim I made up what he pled to was….wait for it….made up. Pleasant Dreams.”

    Where are those training materials?

  291. Almost 300 comments. A great thread but boy a bad tempered and snipey one !

  292. Seamus – I don’t know, I’m not in possession of the evidence. I am however in possession of the facts of his plea. Facts of the plea you stated were made up. Usually you have a good grasp of details so I’ll assume you had those details at the time of your false accusation.

  293. “Seamus – I don’t know, I’m not in possession of the evidence.”

    So why did you claim he provided training materials? And claim he was guilty of it when you are not in possession of the evidence?

  294. I’m not in possession of any of the evidence. I claimed what he pled to. Why did you lie that I made up what he pled to? Answer: Because it didn’t fit with your narrative.

  295. “I claimed what he pled to”

    You claimed he was guilty. Not that he plead guilty, or was found guilty, but that he was guilty.

  296. They pretty much all claim innocence.

    The veracity of the government claim is unknowable to anyone here.

    But it the claim that he provided material aid to the Taliban was indeed true …that had nothing to do with him expressing his views. It would have everything to do with him providing material aid to the Taliban.

    I still don’t think that the UK should have extradited him. He committed no crime in the US, or any directly impacting the US, and I don’t buy this ” server was in America ” bullshit for a New York minute.

    Governments like the US and China are way too quick to say that their law applies outside their own borders

  297. “But it the claim that he provided material aid to the Taliban was indeed true …that had nothing to do with him expressing his views.”

    Except that isn’t even the claim. There is no one saying he provided material aid to the Taliban. They are alleging that he encouraged other people to do so i.e. his speech.

  298. Did he directly ask others to send money or arms or fighters to the Taliban?

    If he did, then in my opinion he has crossed the line.

    Very big difference to saying ” the Taliban is good ” and saying ” The Taliban is good, and please wire £100 to them if you could so that they can wage jihad “.

    All kinds of views are tolerated here, again, even on radio and TV.

    I’ve heard pro Communist Cuba stuff on the lefty radio a number of times here ( WBAI, back in the day ). Those stations never got in trouble. If they’d asked listeners to send money to the Cuban regime, the stations would have lost their license and someone may have gone to jail.

  299. So would you say there is a difference between supporting the Klan and encouraging others to give money to the Klan? Bearing in mind the Taliban wasn’t (and I believe still isnt) a listed terrorist organisation.

  300. It’s legal to say good things about the Klan, to say that you support them.

    I’d have no respect for anyone who did it, but those who did would be breaking no law.

    I don’t think that the KKK is illegal today. It is in great, terminal decline I believe, of a few older guys who run around in the woods with the hoods on or whatever.

    I am not aware of them committing violent acts for a long time.

    It was a huge thing then, not now. And it wasn’t just in the South. There were KKK rallies in NYC in the twenties.

  301. “I don’t think that the KKK is illegal today.”

    Neither is the Taliban.

  302. Four police officers injured today when attacked by ” Defund the Police ” thugs on the Brooklyn Bridge.

    An officer was hit with a cane, bolts and other heavy objects were thrown at police.

    These are the actual real life dangerous terrorists that we need to be afraid of. If the police are defunded, these so called strong guy would rule the weak on the streets of America.

    https://abc7ny.com/protesters-clash-with-nypd-defund-the-police-encampment-officer-injured/6318496/

  303. What I said he pled to you said I made up. This is an embarrassing moment for you, and you are incapable of acknowledging your lie apparently. Lol.

  304. Seamus wanted to push a story about ‘Murica” trampling on the free speech rights of this skel. He’s fallen on his face. Better luck next time.

  305. Maybe stick to Babar the elephant since fiction is your new gig.

  306. Nope, you said he was guilty of x, y and z. Which you would have no way of knowing i.e. made up.

    That you think this is an embarrassing moment shows how small and pathetic you really are.

  307. At least Mr. Ahmed admitted he was wrong, you should follow your hero’s example.

  308. He plead guilty after being tortured. I guess in your mind the Guildford Four were guilty as well.

    I also want wrong. You claimed he was guilty, which you would have no way of knowing, and now are trying to pretend otherwise.

    All while showing how small and pathetic you really are. You think I made a mistake and you are pretty much wanking away over it.

  309. Nope. The Guilford Four in fact were innocent and to the extent there were confessions they were illegally obtained.
    There is no evidence that Babar’s guilty plea was due to torture. If there was his lawyers would have not allowed the guilty plea (and neither would the Court). The only thing here be tortured is the truth by you.

  310. “There is no evidence that Babar’s guilty plea was due to torture.”

    He was locked in solitary confinement for years. Seems pretty torturous.

    “and neither would the Court”

    Yeah because judges are never wrong.

  311. Torture is not defined as solitary confinement so you’ll have to do better than that. Judges can be wrong. But there is no indication that this judge was anything but lenient with him.

  312. “Torture is not defined as solitary confinement so you’ll have to do better than that.”

    I actually don’t. You’ve been nothing but a pathetic troll tonight and have no interest in actually debating things. I’m sure in your less troll like moments even you will have read of the huge psychological damage done by solitary confinement.

  313. There is no indication that Babar was not competent to enter his plea of guilty to the acts you claim I made up. His lawyers obviously could have made such an argument, but they were burdened by the fact that they could not prove such a thing, they can’t offer speculation as you do. You are the Rasputin of this thread, you keep getting killed but come back for more.

  314. He was competent. And he weighed up a life sentence of torture versus pleading guilty and being set free. If prosecutors honestly believed he did what he did they wouldn’t have offered the deal. They did it to cover their backs from potential lawsuits.

    He has made it clear that if the potential sentence was lower, as it would have been in the UK, he’d have fought the case.

  315. They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him. The prosecutors wanted a longer sentence.

    The prosecutors were immune to lawsuits, so there is another one of your claims down the drain.
    Of course he said he would have fought it if only, he’s been waging a propaganda war that has convinced the soft minded.

  316. Was the United States immune to lawsuits? Or is this you trying to be being a clever cunt again?

    And you honestly saying he wasn’t offered a plea bargain by prosecutors?

  317. I wrote the prosecutors were immune from lawsuits. There was nothing they did here that wold expose them to a lawsuit. I am clever, I’ll leave the cunt designation to you. He was offered a plea bargain, but the Judge is the one who reduced the sentence.

  318. They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him. The prosecutors wanted a longer sentence […]

    He was offered a plea bargain, but the Judge is the one who reduced the sentence.

    While I’ve no problem spectating at Seamus and yourself knocking lumps out of each other I’m just going to interject on the points above. He was indeed offered a deal:

    The prosecutors immediately offered Ahmad a deal – plead guilty to the charge of using the website to support the Taliban and he would be back in Britain within months [… .]

    The US government had asked for twice this sentence, but the judge handed down an unexpectedly lenient sentence which meant, because of time already served, Ahmad was freed within months

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/12/babar-ahmad-jihad-bosnia-us-police-interview

  319. “I wrote the prosecutors were immune from lawsuits. There was nothing they did here that wold expose them to a lawsuit.”

    And the prosecutors represent the United States government who is not immune from lawsuits. You seem to spend half the time here trying to be clever, and the other half pretending to be incredibly stupid.

  320. O/T

    ThE Court of Appeal has ruled so called ‘ISIS bride’ Shamima Begum can return to the UK to directly challenge the revoking of her British citizenship:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/16/shamima-begum-wins-right-to-return-to-uk

  321. Paul – he was offered a deal, but it was the judge who set down the length of time. I presume you don’t plan on interjecting as to what he pled to.

  322. The Prosecutors have prosecutorial immunity. The country has sovereign immunity, an exceptionally high bar for the likes of your admitted felon. In this case any lawsuit would be tossed as frivolous.

  323. Because he plead guilty (to avoid being tortured). Are you saying someone who spent over a decade in prison and is then acquitted would get no compensation for wrongful imprisonment?

  324. But it was the judge who set down the length of time

    Yes, that’s why my blocked quote stated:

    But the judge handed down an unexpectedly lenient sentence

    The fact of the matter was that he was offered a plea bargain against a life sentence which the prosecution were originally asking for. The prosecution were looking for double the sentence the judge handed to him in his plea bargain.

    The judge was lenient but there’s absolutely no question that he pleaded guilty as part of a deal.

    I presume you don’t plan on interjecting as to what he pled to.

    Well, I could but it would just mean repeating myself from yesterday.

  325. Paul – all plea bargains are a deal.

  326. He pled guilty because he was guilty. There is no indication he was tortured in the US or faced torture. And he wasn’t acquitted or wrongfully imprisoned. So there is no basis for a lawsuit by him for wrongful imprisonment.

  327. Thank you, that’s precisely the point I was making:

    They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him. The prosecutors wanted a longer sentence

  328. “He pled guilty because he was guilty.”

    Can you please show the evidence the proves that?

    “There is no indication he was tortured in the US or faced torture.”

    He was held in solitary confinement in a Supermax, which is pretty much torture.

    “And he wasn’t acquitted or wrongfully imprisoned. So there is no basis for a lawsuit by him for wrongful imprisonment.”

    Because he plead guilty.

    Stop pretending to be stupid.

  329. He pled guilty because he was guilty

    Yes, he was guilty of running two articles on a blog which supported the Taliban. Pretty much against all the US free speech stuff.

  330. Paul – have you read the plea itself, or are you avoiding doing so because it destroys your argument?

  331. What argument of mine does it destroy?

    However, at least you now seem to accept that he accepted a plea deal.

  332. If only General Flynn had your support…

  333. Paul – I never denied he accepted a plea deal.

  334. Flynn’s guilt can be demonstrated beyond his plea deal – there is an abundance of material in the public domain about it. The same cannot be said for Babar Ahmed.

  335. Paul

    ThE Court of Appeal has ruled so called ‘ISIS bride’ Shamima Begum can return to the UK to directly challenge the revoking of her British citizenship:

    A disappointing result in my opinion.

  336. Is a smart arse quip rather than a direct answer to a direct question a general American trait?

    Paul – I never denied he accepted a plea deal

    Then why write this?

    They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him.

  337. Paul – because they didn’t offer him the deal but rather a deal. The prosecutors wanted a deal with a longer sentence, the judge reduced the time. That is the distinction.

  338. A disappointing result in my opinion

    I haven’t read the ruling yet Dave so I’m not able to comment on the reasoning behind it. It’s my understanding that it’s only to challenge the revocation of her citizenship rather than leave to stay indefinitely.

  339. Paul – because they didn’t offer him the deal but rather a deal

    Really? Semantics?

    The prosecutors wanted a deal with a longer sentence, the judge reduced the time.

    He accepted the original prosecution plea bargain and the judge was more lenient than expected in the sentencing.

  340. Paul

    I haven’t read the ruling yet Dave so I’m not able to comment on the reasoning behind it. It’s my understanding that it’s only to challenge the revocation of her citizenship rather than leave to stay indefinitely

    My comment wasn’t really about the details, but about the fact that her revoked citizenship is still being challenged
    I might have been prepared to give her a second chance and she showed remorse in her earlier interviews. But she didn’t. In fact, she expressed quite the contrary.

  341. Paul – words matter in the law, take the works guilty and innocent for starters. The prosecutors offered a deal but sought a longer sentence. The judge did not agree with them resulting in the deal being for less time. That is the distinction I was trying to make.

  342. The fact that her revoked citizenship is still being challenged

    Lawyer’s gonna law.

  343. “My comment wasn’t really about the details, but about the fact that her revoked citizenship is still being challenged

    I might have been prepared to give her a second chance and she showed remorse in her earlier interviews. But she didn’t. In fact, she expressed quite the contrary.”

    It is illegal to render someone stateless. The government’s argument is that she isn’t stateless as she is entitled to citizenship of another country. That seems to be testing the limit of the law, by moving the goalposts from has another citizenship to could have another citizenship. It is right that gets tested in court.

  344. Paul – words matter in the law

    I’m very well aware that words matter in law and the fact is he took the original prosecution plea bargain and the judge reduced its tariff.

  345. Mahons,

    Paul – words matter in the law, take the works guilty and innocent

    I’ve never heard the legal system use the word innocent. Only guilty and not guilty.
    My understanding is the legal system is not set up to find a person innocent. It’s only capable of proving if there is enough evidence to convict them of the crime.

  346. Dave – – you’ve never heard of the presumption of innocence?

  347. That seems to be testing the limit of the law, by moving the goalposts from has another citizenship to could have another citizenship. It is right that gets tested in court.

    Not in my opinion it isn’t. From what I’ve read the British government is not doing anything wrong legally here.

  348. Mahons,

    Dave – – you’ve never heard of the presumption of innocence?

    Is that not the point I’m actually making?
    If you’re found not guilty you’re not innocent, you’re presumed innocent.

  349. To get away to from the intricacies of the technicalities of the legal process and back to the Babar Ahmad point, Ahmad spent 12 years in jail for running two articles on a blog which supported the Taliban. Pretty much contrary to all the US free speech stuff.

  350. Dave – yes a finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence.

  351. “From what I’ve read the British government is not doing anything wrong legally here.”

    Which is what is being tested. The Home Secretary can only make that order if the person is actually eligible for a different citizenship. The Bangladeshi government have made it clear that they would reject her application for citizenship. Thus it is questionable if she possesses dual citizenship and as such whether or not the Home Secretary’s order was legal.

    And there is then the further, more moral point, of the fact that she is British and that this is simply the UK government trying to export their problems and their mistakes to a third country.

  352. Paul – No, that is incorrect. He didn’t plead guilty to simply running two articles on a blog merely supporting the Taliban. Why don’t you read what he factually and voluntarily pled to?
    Under his plea agreement he could have faced 25 years by the way, had the judge accepted the prosecutors recommendations.

  353. And there is then the further, more moral point, of the fact that she is British and that this is simply the UK government trying to export their problems and their mistakes to a third country.

    How is she the British government’s mistake?

  354. “How is she the British government’s mistake?”

    Radicalised on their watch.

  355. Why don’t you read what he factually and voluntarily pled to?

    I’m very very well aware of what he pled guilty in a plea bargain too. He also did it in the face of having spent almost twelve years in harsh prison conditions for running two articles on a blog supporting the Taliban and the prosecution asking for a life sentence.

    His actions didn’t fit the vindictive charges and you are attempting to hide behind the plea bargain fig leaf in order to justify them.

  356. I don’t know anything about this case other than what I’ve read on this thread, but the actions of the government seem egregious.

  357. Radicalised on their watch.

    I think that’s a bit harsh to make it the responsibility of the British government for the behaviour of individual citizens.
    However, Begum’s radicalisation was helped by her family such as her father taking her to see hate Preachers like Anjem Choudhury. Someone who regularly used the UK legal system to his advantage, that’s making it much harder for the UK government to prevent hin radicalising others. so yes it’s a good thing the government takes responsibility for this radicalisation and prevents people like Begum coming back to the UK and radicalising others.

  358. And instead abdicates their responsibility? She is British, she isn’t Bangladeshi. There is no rational argument to suggest that she should be Bangladesh’s problem but not Britain.

    Bring her back, deradicalise her, and watch her like a hawk for the rest of her life.

  359. Or better still legally prevent her from returning to the UK and save a shitload of money on probably failing to de-radicalise her and watching her for the rest of her life.

  360. So he didn’t do the acts he admitted to in the plea?
    By pleading guilty under the plea he could have faced a 25 year sentence had the judge been so inclined.

  361. This is a rabbit hole of a thread .once in you can’t leave. Bit like the revelation of st John. Lol

  362. “Or better still legally prevent her from returning to the UK and save a shitload of money on probably failing to de-radicalise her and watching her for the rest of her life.”

    And leave her where? What happens when the Syrians, the Turks, the Kurds etc… decide that this girl is British and they don’t want to keep her anymore?

  363. Babar Ahmad could marry her and keep an eye on her.

  364. So he didn’t do the acts he admitted to in the plea?

    Unless you cosider running two articles on a blog supporting the Taliban and carrying factual reports of Bosnian and Checam Muslim casualities as ‘providing support for terrorism’, yes.

  365. So he admitted to fabricated charges and faced a potential 25 year sentence despite having his actions limited to what you describe. The Prosecutors made it up, and his lawyers were that incompetent that they couldn’t get the charges dismissed or him acquitted if all he did was merely what you say and this Federal Judge permitted it to happen?

  366. Where was it said that the only things that he did was ” running two articles on a blog “?

    The Guardian article does not say that.

    Do the court documents say that?

    What is the source of that assertion?

  367. Don’t expect the facts to trouble their narrative of an innocent Muslim martyr caught up in the devious clutches of the Islamophobic American prosecution.

  368. No Mahons, he pleaded guilty to a potential further twelve years in jail plea bargain rather than the life sentence the prosecution was asking for.

    The Federal Judge that yo speaK actually stated that Ahmad was no international terrorist, didn’t support Al Qeada, nor Osama Bin Laden.

    Phantom, from having no knowledge on the cas you now seem to have become an expert on it.

    This is what the Guardian article says:

    After being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government

  369. Don’t expect the facts to trouble their narrative of an innocent Muslim martyr caught up in the devious clutches of the Islamophobic American prosecution

    Much like smatarse quips as answers to direct questions extreme exaggeration of a commentators position seems to be common currency of the New Yorkers.

  370. Like you guys, I know very little about the facts here.

    But I do note that the Guardian article still does not mention ” two online articles “, on a blog or anywhere else.

    Those words were written by you, not by them.

  371. Ok, like I said they won’t mention the clear language of the acts in the plea. Language he voluntarily agreed to.

  372. Language he voluntarily agreed to

    After spending almost twelve years in jail and looking at a possible life sentence. As I said above, you are attempting to hide behind the plea bargain fig leaf in order to justify the vindictive charging.

    Those words were written by you, not by them

    My blocked quote at 2.41 is literally taken from the Guardian.

  373. The phrase “the two online articles” is taken from the Guardian?

    I’m not hiding behind the plea bargain. I’m pointing out precisely what it said.

  374. “I’m not hiding behind the plea bargain. I’m pointing out precisely what it said.”

    You are pretending that the plea bargain is an accurate version of events, rather than an agreement signed under duress.

  375. The phrase “the two online articles” is taken from the Guardian?

    Yes, although I won’t hold my breath waiting for Phantom to retract/ apologise.

    I’m not hiding behind the plea bargain. I’m pointing out precisely what it said

    What Seamus said.

  376. So he pretended, his lawyers pretended, the federal prosecutor pretended and a sympathetic Federal Judge allowed the pretending?

  377. Rather that gamble on a potential life sentance he agreed to a plea bargain is what he did.

    There, I fixed that for you.

  378. He accepted a deal that would free him, even if it wasn’t accurate. So did his attorney (who’s role was to protect his interest). The prosecution wanted to protect the United States from litigation. And the judge had to go by the letter of the law which criminalised Ahmed’s speech.

  379. Paul I just read the article interview where you quote came from. Would you agree it was a fairly biased account? It accepts all his allegations and is apparently the subject of legal process. And what of the Guardian article Phantom quoted above? Did they get it wrong that day?

  380. “Would you agree it was a fairly biased account?”

    So sources that agree with you should be chiseled in stone, but all others are “biased”?

  381. The deal might have resulted in an additional dozen years. Did his attorney state it was inaccurate? What is the basis for the claim the Prosecutor wanted to spare the US from litigation? Has anyone charged the Prosecutor with misconduct?

  382. “What is the basis for the claim the Prosecutor wanted to spare the US from litigation?”

    The false imprisonment, the misleading of the grand jury about the location of the server, etc…

  383. Seamus – No. I think any fair reading of the article Paul cited would admit it is exceptionally biased. There may very well be articles biased in the other direction. The article cited by Phantom above seems pretty objective.

  384. What is biased about the article? Be specific.

  385. Misleading the grand jury would be grounds for dismissal (if true). False imprisonment is a fairly high bar.

  386. Last year Ahmad was finally released from prison after being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government at a time when they were harbouring bin Laden

    That’s taken from the article that Phantom said the Guardian didn’t write, we did.

    And what of the Guardian article Phantom quoted above? Did they get it wrong that day?

    Rather than go with your argument ad ignorantium I’m gonna go with the Guardian article which was written a year after Ahmad’s release.

  387. The article accepts all of his claims without questions and doesn’t provide anything contrary to those claims. The author even adopts much of the propaganda.

  388. I think any fair reading of the article Paul cited would admit it is exceptionally biased.

    Unlike your own absolutely non partisan, impartial reading of it?

  389. Of course you are Paul.

  390. And you have accepted the plea deal claims without question. Is that biased?

  391. This Ahmad case should never have been introduced to this thread, regardless of the legitimate interest in talking about it otherwise. ( I again see no legitimate interest in the US prosecuting this case, for starters. That ” server ” stuff is a dangerous nonsense. )

    He was arrested for providing material aid to the Taliban. No one here is qualified to speak as to the truth or falsity of that charge.

    But he was not arrested, detained, or convicted for expressing his views.

    There are unfortunately British and Americans who support the Taliban now. They could demonstrate in front of the White House or Parliament with signs saying how good the Taliban was and nothing would happen to them.

    You were allowed to support the Taliban in 1999, you are allowed to support it now.

  392. I went to read it because I’d welcome a non biased account. It was no better than Patrick’s proffered article about Dr. Atlas today.

  393. “He was arrested for providing material aid to the Taliban. No one here is qualified to speak as to the truth or falsity of that charge.

    But he was not arrested, detained, or convicted for expressing his views.”

    That material aid were his expressed views, not actual aid. Thus he was arrested, detained and convicted for expressing his views.

  394. I questioned what he pled to so I could know what he admitted to. When I pointed out what he pled to you said I made it up. I suppose you are now saying he made it up.

    I would support anyone wrongfully prosecuted for speech, and there are certainly examples over the years of wrongful prosecution. I don’t think this was one of them

  395. Of course you are Paul

    Of course I am what? Unbiased? I’ve already said that the charges were vindictive and didn’t fit the actions. I believer that publishing internet articles doesn’t warrant any jail time never mind twelve years, (as well as being against all that US free speech stuff), so in those terms I’m absolutely biased.

    No one here is qualified to speak as to the truth or falsity of that charge.

    We are as qualified to speak about it as we are any other case.

    But he was not arrested, detained, or convicted for expressing his views.

    No, he was arrested and detained for publishing opinions on the Taliban.

  396. “When I pointed out what he pled to you said I made it up. I suppose you are now saying he made it up.”

    You said that he was guilty. Not that he pled guilty. When Phantom asked me if all of it was true I said no you made it up. Which is true. You have no idea if he is guilty or not, and didn’t qualify your statement on his guilt, meaning you made it up.

  397. This Ahmad case should never have been introduced to this thread

    Trying to close down speech? That’s how this lengthy thread came into being in the first place.

  398. No, just pointing out that the case is completely irrelevant to any true speech discussion.

    Ahmad was free to write blogs in favor of the Taliban then, he is free to do it today.

    There is nothing in British or US law AFAIK that would restrict any of that.

  399. No, the fact was that he was arrested and detained for publishing his views on the internet hence the case came to be discussed here.

    Here it is from the Guardian article that you said we wrote.

    Last year Ahmad was finally released from prison after being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government at a time when they were harbouring bin Laden

  400. “No, just pointing out that the case is completely irrelevant to any true speech discussion.”

    He wrote two articles, supporting the Taliban and encouraging others to do the same. He spent 12 years in prison for it. If that isn’t relevant to a free speech debate then nothing is.

  401. Tried to give you a gracious exit, but you seem to want to cling to this to the end of time.

    He was charged with providing material aid to the Taliban.

    And none of us here know if he did do that or not.

    And unless we know that, we can’t discuss this case from any position of knowledge.

  402. Can you provide the complete texts of the two blog articles?

    That would be the beginning of knowledge on this.

  403. “He was charged with providing material aid to the Taliban.”

    And that material aid was his online articles in support of them. Thus it was a criminalisation of his free speech.

    “Tried to give you a gracious exit, but you seem to want to cling to this to the end of time.”

    I can’t speak for others but I don’t need a gracious exit. One of the benefits of being right I guess. If you don’t want to argue the point then don’t argue the point. But just because you don’t want to argue the point doesn’t mean that your final, self-delusional stance on the issue is the accepted version of events.

  404. “Can you provide the complete texts of the two blog articles?”

    I can’t find them, I have tried to find them. The entire website is gone.

  405. If he only did what was claimed, publish two pro Talib an articles, the charges could not possibly have stuck.

  406. So, like the rest of us, you have no knowledge on the most salient point of the discussion.

    It’s all supposition.

  407. “So, like the rest of us, you have no knowledge on the most salient point of the discussion.”

    I don’t have the text. Whether that is the most salient part is debatable. He wrote an article, two in fact. And was out in prison for 12 years for it. Those are the only established facts.

  408. Can you provide the complete texts of the two blog articles?

    No, but I can put up where an internationally respected newspaper says that that was the case that he spent twelve years in jail for. Now, perhaps you’d like to put up the evidence of fine detail as to the allegations in the plea bargain?

    Tried to give you a gracious exit, but you seem to want to cling to this to the end of time

    No ‘gracious exit’ is needed but your patroising is noted, thanks.

    I don’t really think that there’s much more needed to say on tis. I think the point has been made as evidenced by your fellow countryman, the magnificent Charles’, comments.

  409. *patronising

  410. So Mr. Ahmad was randomly selected because of two blog articles and everything else set forth in his plea was false?

  411. They have no idea what it was that he wrote but they are sure that none of it was material assistance.

    Sounds logical to me! 🙂

  412. “They have no idea what it was that he wrote but they are sure that none of it was material assistance.”

    He was investigated in the UK and it was found he commmited no offence. So it was material assistance in America but not material assistance in the UK?

  413. We do not know any of it.

    Standards may vary.

  414. I suppose the UK and US possibly have some different laws.

  415. “Standards may vary.”

    But facts don’t. And if it was a material assitance to terrorists in the US then it was also material assitance to terrorists in the UK.

    “I suppose the UK and US possibly have some different laws.”

    Indeed. One criminalised this specific form of speech, the other didn’t.

  416. Ah, so now the cocky gloating begins? A variation of Mahons’ argument ad ignorantium above.

    Look it’s stated above in black and white from an internationally respected newspaper that Phantom says we wrote:

    Last year Ahmad was finally released from prison after being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government at a time when they were harbouring bin Laden.

    Got that now?
    Expressing an opinion in internet ether by it’s very definition can’t be material assistance (and against all that American free speech thing).

    Charles, with no dog in this fight, has been his characteristically objective, honest self above.

  417. Paul come on that article isn’t a news article, it’s a profile piece written by a highly sympathetic writer featuring an unchallenging interview with Ahmad. It reads with the objectivity of Ivanka Trump interviewing her father.

  418. Expressing an opinion in internet ether by it’s very definition can’t be material assistance (and against all that American free speech thing).

    Again, you have no idea what he said.

    You have no idea whether it was only opinion.

    This is all roaring from a position from a position of invincible ignorance, without thinking anything through.

  419. So because Mahons disagrees with a journalist (who spent 10 years as a court reporter, was the home affairs and law editor for The Independent, and is a journalist specialising in extremism who literally wrote the book on Jihadi John) then that person is as objective as Ivanka Trump interviewing her father?

  420. The article clearly was not objective, whether or not I agreed with the writer.

  421. Written by a highly sympathetic writer featuring an unchallenging interview with Ahmad

    Seamus beat me to the punch above.

    Rather more unsympathtetic and dispassioned than two Americans that can’t accept the their country locked up a guy for writing two intenet articles I would have thought.

    You have no idea whether it was only opinion

    Yet more agrgument ad ignortantium.

    Internet ether by definition can’t be ‘material’

  422. No.

  423. I can accept plenty of things the US has done wrong in regards to free speech issues and/or the “War on Terror”. Back when it was a hotter ATW topic I consistently called for either a trial or release of individuals languishing in Gitmo. I just don’t accept that Babar wasn’t guilty of the crimes he pled to.

  424. Yes

    We crossed swords on that issue a few times

  425. Blimey , this thread has been going on longer than that poor guy was in solitary confinement. 🙂