It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Give up your rights to fight terror!!!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 01:16 PM
Simple problem, reaction, solution. Just another ploy to remove our rights in the name of "security". Let the governments control the sheep who are too heavily dependent on someone else to think n take care of them. That's a brilliant plan.. most governments are trustworthy, uncorrupted, and unbiased, and not kissing the boots of corporations. They're excellent leaders of free thinking citizens right? I've never heard of a government taking bribes before and I've never heard of a government dictator removing the rights of citizens and putting dissidents in slave labor camps. Brilliant idea atsers. I suggest we all just wave the white flag of surrender and let the governments limit free speech, internet, sexual relations, education, employment options... the bigger the government the better the lives of the people. Just ask North Koreans.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 01:41 PM
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Undoubtedly, if we give up our liberties for security we will lose both.

Muslims who are radicalized (not to be confused with Muslims who are not jihadists) cannot be reasoned with. This is not a new problem but a very old one. If you believe that converting to Islam will solve the problems, then you do not fully understand the problem. Terrorism exists among Muslims even within their own country. This is nothing new and won't be solved by tolerance nor by diplomacy. Wars were fought in order to preserve the way of life of individual nations. Not just wars against Islamic influences, but against any and all unwanted influences. This is no different.

History has shown that this has happened before. The difference is, we are more open to new influences and ready to reach out to cultures that are different from our own. Not all peoples have the same values or the same maturity. Some are still living in their version of the dark ages. Old beliefs die hard and perhaps it isn't just a matter of belief but that's a rabbit hole of a different color.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 02:16 PM
I think the answer here is somewhere in the middle. Yes, likely terrorists should be monitored and stopped very proactively. No, turning the whole internet into a big brother program is not a good idea. They will use it against regular citizens and small businesses in the long run.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 02:35 PM
a reply to: kaylaluv

How do you know that ISIS can 'radicalize' a person over the internet? Is that like a switch on their back somewhere? Just activate that switch somehow, and the person becomes radicalized?

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 02:35 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yea, its the Americans bombing ISIS that's the problem that's causing the terrorist attacks in France, Spain, Germany, the UK and the US.

Not to mention that:
The Iraqi Air Force is bombing ISIS;
The Kurds are "fighting" and shelling ISIS positions.
The Syrians are bombing ISIS,
The Jordanian Airforce is bombing ISIS
The Russians are bombing ISIS,
The Israelis have periodically bombed ISIS and Al Queda.
The French were bombing ISIS, (they ran outa bombs),
The English have bombed ISIS in the recent past.

Yea, its all about the US bombing ISIS and Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But of course, its NOT about decades of shoddy immigration practices that allowed the wholesale migration of a peoples from a culture purely antithetical to the Western Culture of Western Europe, the UK and the United States.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 02:37 PM
a reply to: Kali74

And the "dark web" can't be shut down? That's a real question BTW, I don't know the answer, but it would seem possible.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 02:57 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Of course you blame the tool, rather than the folks utilizing the tool for whatever nefarious reasons...

Isn't that the way it works??

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 03:00 PM

originally posted by: pirhanna
I think the answer here is somewhere in the middle. Yes, likely terrorists should be monitored and stopped very proactively. No, turning the whole internet into a big brother program is not a good idea. They will use it against regular citizens and small businesses in the long run.

I would say that definitions are in order, of just exactly what a "terrorist" actually is.

For dark-skinned people being policed by white-skinned people, they should be protected, which is to say the police should be restrained by the law.

The war on terror is really just a propaganda tool to keep the people fearful.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 03:20 PM
a reply to: seagull

Of course! Otherwise someone could develop the idea to use this tool in order to pipe the eff up, probably even to research the roots of terror, maybe... Heck. Someone might find ATS! Me, you ... US!


We've gotta shut 'em up! Shut 'em up now!!

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 04:35 PM
They mess with the internet over my dead body, given that I live in the UK that may well happen.

Fiddling with the internet isn't going to make us safer, why can't they see this?

Then again the Tories love this kind of thing, would allow them to censor stuff like the hustings meeting where Amber Rudd didn't like what the other candidate was saying about her and her party, so she got the chairman to stop it dead.

Thing is I only know about this because of the internet.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 05:17 PM
For all who think this is a good move, I ask you this:
Who will be in charge of content?

How much will be enough to limit?

What's next?

If you don't have good solid answers to those questions, then before you think with your partisan blinders on, remove them, think about this from a person who has freedoms now, but it close to loosing some if he doesn't react.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 05:24 PM
a reply to: network dude

I couldn't give a # if the government says I can't advocate that people who believe different # to me should be killed.
I have never had an inclination to advocate that.
Hardly a loss of rights anyway, it's already illegal to do that in the UK.
Stop me searching porn on Google and I might start whinging.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 05:31 PM

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: network dude

So you want ISIS to be free to radicalize people on the internet?


How weak do ya have to be for that to happen?

What's next? Censor the news? ATS?

Slippery stuff.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 05:37 PM
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I'm happy if it there is a law saying you can't call for the murder of someone if they believe something different to you.
I don't do that though so of course I don't care.

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 05:37 PM

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: network dude

This video is trending, you should watch it - it tells a story of what should happen and what's gonna happen if it doesn't.

Saw that yesterday, he doesn't hold back and he's right!!

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 07:24 PM

edit on 4-6-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 04:45 AM
Sources say one of the terrorists was radicalized from Youtube(friend turned him in at one time) videos. If they are YouTube and social media influenced and not TOR as many may suspect, now what? These sites have measures, but apparently not enough(namely YouTube) as it seems to focus more on copy-write infringement(could be wrong?).

According to: "Edward Snowden: state surveillance in Britain has no limits " about the GCHQ.

He said: “In the UK … is the system of regulation where anything goes. They collect everything that might be interesting. It’s up to the government to justify why it needs this. It’s not up to you to justify why it doesn’t … This is where the danger is, when we think about … evidence being gathered against us but we don’t have the opportunity to challenge that in courts. It undermines the entire system of justice.”
Yeah, they are looking at Tor, not Youtube. Otherwise they'd be recruiting more so from there. They have moved on away from the honey pot, out in the open.

These big companies already turn their accumulated info over as we know by the revealings, to the NSA.

Best way to prevent it-likely in the minds of total control grid pushers, is sadly the most draconian way possible. Here's a breakdown of what that is:

To have every internet user have their name displayed(verified real name with social media account linked) on every website they use, especially when joining a site, on that ISP account. As media companies that allow members to post, use forums, etc., will have to change over to a DISQUS or similar like system for log ins. Guessing US media companies will have to abide by their rules as well for the UK members.

If lucky it will be China's internet sign in policy:

The Chinese government has long been pushing people to use their real names online. However, it's now ready to make that an absolute requirement. Starting March 1st, residents will have to register internet accounts (including on blogs, chat services and social networks) using their real names. They won't have to display a real name, but they can't create a completely anonymous ID.
Where you don't have to display your real name but everything is linked to you. Imagine jobs(employers look at social media, some require it) having access to that now and more.

Possible something similar to the following might apply being that if the measures help thwart the terrorist activity:

It'll also be illegal to impersonate other people or organizations, and neither your avatar nor your nickname can include illegal content -- including something that "subverts state power" or promotes "rumormongering."

Now ask yourself, is that what you want?

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:37 PM

originally posted by: slider1982

originally posted by: network dude
Link to source
Theresa May seems to think that terror attacks would be cured by allowing the internet to be regulated and only let you see what we approved.

"We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed - yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide,” Ms May said. “We need to work with allies democratic governments to reach international agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. The call was one plank in Ms May's speech following the attack. The Prime Minister also said Britian was too tolerant of extremism and that "pluralistic" British values had to be established as superior.

So it seems that by allowing "them" to filter what you are allowed to see, terrorism will be thwarted.

Terrorism wins if this takes place. Don't be that guy.

Terrorism was here long before the internet, Absurd stance to take every ones freedom due to the Daesh situation, The IRA where well coordinated to carry out their attacks, where they on line during the 80s????....

There are a million and one ways for terrorist groups to communicate, I would think keeping them on line esp if they are sloppy would be far better than having to have the man power and resources needed to infiltrate such organisations. I guess we need to ban print as from what I hear the main fundamental teaching is from a book, and NOT Facebook!!!!!!....

Deal with the real problem!!!!!!......


Definitely agree!

If anything the world has become lazy and they probably don't have the organization and discipline that the big bad guys did 30years ago, so it's actually better and easier to catch them with these honeypots online. If they get forced into real world underground networks and they get smart I think it will make the counter-terror efforts much more difficult.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in