| "The real oppression is terrorist attacks that leave people in fear of their safety." What does this have to do with terrorism? It might be a stated excuse for implementing laws like this, but the intent does not equal actual result. Also, I have not been killed by a terrorist, but if a law like this is passed where I live I will have been limited in my freedoms by my government. I am not scared of terrorists as of yet, so the net result is that I am not oppressed by terrorists, but I am oppressed by the government. News agencies and governments spread the fear of 'terrorist' attacks. Most of the time there are loners who carry out their 'attacks'. Calling them 'terrorists' makes them more scary, while in fact they are most often troubled individuals who choose to label their insanity with 'ISIS' so that the fear they spread is bigger. News agencies, eager to make money selling advertisement, use these mentally ill people by calling them 'terrorists' and sensationalising the events in order to get more viewers. "Not oppression: arresting some radicalised extremist for preparing themselves with terrorist training manuals and suchlike." This has nothing to do with what is happening. The article talks about making it illegal to read extremist websites. Intent and effect do not go hand in hand. On top of this stated intent and true intent do not go hand in hand either. Governments cannot be trusted with the authority to decide who gets access to which information, very recent example: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/no-justification-spani... |
> Most of the time there are loners who carry out their 'attacks'.
No. Some guy with a knife yeah, but for most of the other cases no
I'm not scared about attacks, but I'm deeply scared how we came to tolerate radical "religions"