Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillygoose | Hacker News Reader

> There is no right to free speech in the UK.

Yes, and that's.. what? Not acceptable, but not resisted anyway? Do you think "putting scrutiny"[1] on people who support terrorism is fine, but imprisoning people for a tweet is not?

[1] Violating the right to free speech

What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? Do you think there are enough people in the UK to find that many people deranged in that particular way, or do you think some of them might be paid to act like it?

Free speech is limited in the US too, whenever it gets too inconvenient to the ruling class: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/14-speci...

View on HN

> What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists?

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

The IRA, for example, was well funded through donations to give one of the most recent examples. The ANC is another one that springs to mind:

"'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land" - Margaret Thatcher, 1987

Going back a bit further, many European countries actively tried stopping recruitment to the International Brigades fighting against Franco in the Spanish civil war, up to and including imprisoning people.

Irgun is another example: A zionist military organization with several massacres to its name that was considered a terrorist organization by Britain at the time, as well as by some important contemporary Jewish organizations. Irgun is one of the direct predecessors to the Israeli Likud party, that has been part of most Israeli governments since th late 70's.

There's a long range of causes that various subsets of Western civil society have given support to that have been considered terrorist by contemporary authorities.

Some of them are still seen as terrorists in retrospect, some of them are seen as heroes and freedom fighters. Some are seen as either/both depending on who you ask.

You're right. But to be more accurate, who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that beheads innocent bystanders because they're infidels or something?

Usually, a "terrorist" is anyone who poses a threat to the established ruling elites somewhere. But we're told we need to be very afraid of some desert loonies somewhere in Hellholeistan. Naturally then, we need governments to protect us by snooping in on everything we do anywhere. For safety.

Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that carries out bomb attacks on busy commuter streets during rush hour?

Quite a lot, as it happens: The ANC did that.

Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organisation that tried to blow up the UK cabinet?

Well, quite a lot of people proclaimed support for the IRA.

Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organisation that attacks a village and kills over a 100 civilians?

Quite a lot, given that a lot of people from Irgun (Deir Yassin massacre) have been central to the leadership of Israel.

The thing is, a lot of atrocities will seem necessary, or at least excusable, to those who see themselves as freedomfighters, whether or not the future will be kind to them.

I don't expect the future will be kind to IS, and the past is littered with terrorist groups - and freedomfighters - who are still hated and detested, and many of the ones "we" tend to see as freedom fighters today still have dirty hands and/or are seen as terrorists by others, so who knows...

I agree with the second part of your comment, though. It's played up because it's convenient to have enemies. Doesn't mean I don't think e.g. IS needs to be countered, but I don't think it'll get countered by snooping - on the contrary, it will fuel the paranoia of those that are intrigued by their cause.

To take a personal example: In my youth I was member of a marxist group. The knowledge that Norwegian intelligence services carried out extensive surveillance of the members of lots of left wing organizations (highly illegally, as it happens - but while the extent of their illegal surveillance was first "discovered" years later, everyone in the organisations in question knew about it; just that nobody believed them) did not deter me. On the contrary: It made me more certain my decision was correct: It was evidence of the oppression I was against.

The organisation in question was (and is) fully legal, participating in elections, and does not (and did not) advocate violence in any way, but I don't believe the overall principle is different: If someone is considering a cause opposed by government, then surveillance will not stop most of them, but spur them on and prove to them that they can not trust their own government.

> The thing is, a lot of atrocities will seem necessary, or at least excusable, to those who see themselves as freedomfighters, whether or not the future will be kind to them.

Well maybe they weren't in their right minds?

> If someone is considering a cause opposed by government, then surveillance will not stop most of them, but spur them on and prove to them that they can not trust their own government.

You can both believe in your cause, and distrust your government, but while being scared shitless of speaking out. So, I wouldn't say that surveillance works against governments.

There's a certain point before which awareness of mass-surveillance may cause negative sentiment towards the government, especially without being managed effectively with propaganda, but after another point.. you're in North-Korea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com