NationStates Jolt Archive

... but they all reminded me of a question I asked a couple of years ago.

Being called a terrorist if you're not one is a lot like being called a racist or a homophobe if you're not one -- seemingly impossible to defend yourself against. The more you try to prove you're not, the guiltier you look.

The question is this: Is it really as impossible as it seems? How would you go about it showing others that you're not [fill in the bad-person type] and get them to actually believe you?

everything depends on point of view

Well not completely. Why would someone call you a terrorist. If perhaps you were of the Islamic faith and someone said it to you than yes it is the same as racial and other slurs. Personally if someone called me a terrorist I'd laugh.

... but they all reminded me of a question I asked a couple of years ago.

Being called a terrorist if you're not one is a lot like being called a racist or a homophobe if you're not one -- seemingly impossible to defend yourself against. The more you try to prove you're not, the guiltier you look.

The question is this: Is it really as impossible as it seems? How would you go about it showing others that you're not [fill in the bad-person type] and get them to actually believe you?

Why is there a need for you to defend yourself in the first place?

if a person is calling me a certain thing with no valid proof, I shouldn't have to defend myself against that sort of retarded ignorance and judgemental nature. I'm better than that.

if your actions do not defend the accusation, then you need not worry.

Why is there a need for you to defend yourself in the first place?

if a person is calling me a certain thing with no valid proof, I shouldn't have to defend myself against that sort of retarded ignorance and judgemental nature. I'm better than that.

if your actions do not defend the accusation, then you need not worry.

nice idea in theory. unfortunatly, human nature being what it is, mud sticks.

Not necessarily. Primarily because to be a racist or a homophobe you need not take any physical action, or even have a desire to take a physical action based upon your beliefs. But to be a terrorist you must have a desire to take an action on behalf of your beliefs, or have actually done so.

nice idea in theory. unfortunatly, human nature being what it is, mud sticks.
Agreed, but what can you do? if someone is hell bent on believiing what they believe, all you can do is know in yourself that you're not. The people that matter to know you would not believe such slander, and anyone that would believe stereotypes and gossip with no proof are just idgits.

I know it's not that simple, but it should be.

IMHO

Not necessarily. Primarily because to be a racist or a homophobe you need not take any physical action, or even have a desire to take a physical action based upon your beliefs. But to be a terrorist you must have a desire to take an action on behalf of your beliefs, or have actually done so.

really? in the uk people are being arrested under the terrorism act for having certain files on their pc, files that i have. does that make me a terrorist? or does that make me someone with a interest in reading everything i can get my hands on?

... but they all reminded me of a question I asked a couple of years ago.

Being called a terrorist if you're not one is a lot like being called a racist or a homophobe if you're not one -- seemingly impossible to defend yourself against. The more you try to prove you're not, the guiltier you look.

The question is this: Is it really as impossible as it seems? How would you go about it showing others that you're not [fill in the bad-person type] and get them to actually believe you?

It's hard to prove a negative.

really? in the uk people are being arrested under the terrorism act for having certain files on their pc, files that i have. does that make me a terrorist? or does that make me someone with a interest in reading everything i can get my hands on?
The files on the PC are typically corroborating evidence. They help lead to the conclusion that the individual is a terrorist, but, they do not prove in and of themselves that they are terrorists.

... but they all reminded me of a question I asked a couple of years ago.

Being called a terrorist if you're not one is a lot like being called a racist or a homophobe if you're not one -- seemingly impossible to defend yourself against. The more you try to prove you're not, the guiltier you look.

The question is this: Is it really as impossible as it seems? How would you go about it showing others that you're not [fill in the bad-person type] and get them to actually believe you?

Or communist during the fifties in keeping with the thingamijagger.

Seriously though.

"Terrorist!"

"No, I'm not!"

"Oh yeah? Well Bill here says that every Saturday you take your car down to NYC and blow yourself up!"

"What? That doesn't make any sense!"

"Yeah, right! Terrorist!"

The files on the PC are typically corroborating evidence. They help lead to the conclusion that the individual is a terrorist, but, they do not prove in and of themselves that they are terrorists.

Just out of interest. How many people have been succesfully prosecuted as being terrorist in the uk since 11/9?

Just out of interest. How many people have been succesfully prosecuted as being terrorist in the uk since 11/9?
No clue. And I wouldn't have the first clue where to look for that info.

Just out of interest. How many people have been succesfully prosecuted as being terrorist in the uk since 11/9?

i think theres a trial going on at the moment

Depends on the circumstances.

1) If it's just some jerk yelling "terrorist" at anyone who disagrees with him, you treat him with the contempt and ridicule he deserves.

2) If he keeps it up, you challenge him to prove his accusations. You can't prove the negative that you're not a terrorist, but since he's asserting a positive -- that you are one -- it's his responsibility to back that up. If he can't, then see #1 above.

3) If he does it in print or in public statements (like in an article or a television interview or just to your co-workers and neighbors), you sue him for slander.

... but they all reminded me of a question I asked a couple of years ago.

Being called a terrorist if you're not one is a lot like being called a racist or a homophobe if you're not one -- seemingly impossible to defend yourself against. The more you try to prove you're not, the guiltier you look.

The question is this: Is it really as impossible as it seems? How would you go about it showing others that you're not [fill in the bad-person type] and get them to actually believe you?


You don't.
Some accusations can only be answered by a loud FUCK YOU - and that will be the only time I'll be using the F-word this week.

i'll give you a hint, 0. we've managed to shoot a couple of innocent guys, kept some people locked up without charge for a while and arrested quite a few who have to return to their communities with the label 'terrorist' hanging over their head.

my point being that evidence collection by our security forces is not exactly brilliant and having a few incriminating documents on your pc is more that enought to get you a stay at paddington green police station.

i'll give you a hint, 0. we've managed to shoot a couple of innocent guys, kept some people locked up without charge for a while and arrested quite a few who have to return to their communities with the label 'terrorist' hanging over their head.

my point being that evidence collection by our security forces is not exactly brilliant and having a few incriminating documents on your pc is more that enought to get you a stay at paddington green police station.
Then there's obviously systemic flaws with the police in the UK. Not with the basic concept of charging someone to be a terrorist.

Or communist during the fifties in keeping with the thingamijagger.
Do you mean HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee)?

Seriously though.

"Terrorist!"

"No, I'm not!"

"Oh yeah? Well Bill here says that every Saturday you take your car down to NYC and blow yourself up!"

"What? That doesn't make any sense!"

"Yeah, right! Terrorist!"
That sums it up pretty well.

And also seriously, people's lives were destroyed by the Red Scare. Careers ended, families ripped apart, innocent people incarcerated for years, even suicides. Even just the refusal to call someone else a communist could get you labeled a communist. Is it going to be the same with "terrorist"? Nip it in the bud now, I say. Demand to see the proof, and if there is none, expose the lie and the liar as publicly as possible. And keep the numbers of some good lawyers handy.

Then there's obviously systemic flaws with the police in the UK.

yes, there is. although noone else seems to be doing much better. being labelled a terrorist in the uk is quite an easy thing to have happen in the current climate and quite a difficult stain to remove.

Do you mean HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee)?


That sums it up pretty well.

And also seriously, people's lives were destroyed by the Red Scare. Careers ended, families ripped apart, innocent people incarcerated for years, even suicides. Even just the refusal to call someone else a communist could get you labeled a communist. Is it going to be the same with "terrorist"? Nip it in the bud now, I say. Demand to see the proof, and if there is none, expose the lie and the liar as publicly as possible. And keep the numbers of some good lawyers handy.

Well, the proof is that you have a russian name.
Nikolai Romanov - that has got to be Bolshie.
I've PROVEN that you are a communist.

But the real 'thing' is that once the lawyers get in, you get hung up on micromanagement of the definitions of guilt, innocence, communist, communism, and finally the definition of 'is'

The F-word seems a more appropriate defense.

yes, there is. although noone else seems to be doing much better. being labelled a terrorist in the uk is quite an easy thing to have happen in the current climate and quite a difficult stain to remove.
Quite. Reforms of arrest policies and required levels of evidence for arrest would be advisable to the police in the UK>

Quite. Reforms of arrest policies and required levels of evidence for arrest would be advisable to the police in the UK>

A silly suggestion - unless you reform the judicary first.

The Peelers are not going to work very hard when they have reason to believe that even the most clearly established guilt ( such as being caught while hijacking a plane with 300 witnesses ) get judicially turned into a reason for Asylum

Nor will the Peelers bother to gather evidence when the Home Secretary is too busy turning prisons into open holliday-camps - where you may walk away when you are bored with prisonlife.

I reckon the Peelers will shoot to kill instead.

Hey remember McCarthy? ...Yeah...

Hey remember McCarthy? ...Yeah...


I love those fifties-show.

The McCarthy Show ( life from the Senate ) was almost as much fun as I Love Lucy!

A silly suggestion - unless you reform the judicary first.

The Peelers are not going to work very hard when they have reason to believe that even the most clearly established guilt ( such as being caught while hijacking a plane with 300 witnesses ) get judicially turned into a reason for Asylum

Nor will the Peelers bother to gather evidence when the Home Secretary is too busy turning prisons into open holliday-camps - where you may walk away when you are bored with prisonlife.

I reckon the Peelers will shoot to kill instead.

be quiet. the police and judiciary have had powers heaped on them since 11/9 and still can't seem to find the terrorists so they shoot some brazilian for wearing a big coat.

Well, the proof is that you have a russian name.
Nikolai Romanov - that has got to be Bolshie.
I've PROVEN that you are a communist.

But the real 'thing' is that once the lawyers get in, you get hung up on micromanagement of the definitions of guilt, innocence, communist, communism, and finally the definition of 'is'

The F-word seems a more appropriate defense.
By F-word, do you mean "fuck," by any chance? If so, then yes, a loud "FUUUUUCK YOOOU!" with appropriate body language is the best first line response. I'm surprised that you, of all people, felt the need to point that out to me, of all people. *shrug*

However, if the terrorist-calling moron tries to escalate the conflict by spreading actual rumors about you, then I say throw him to the lawyers and let them rip him apart -- like pitbulls, you know.

Like for instance, your fear of "micromanagement of definitions" would obviously only be a concern for the kinds of people who have called me a terrorist, a terrorist sympathizer, an Islamofascist supporter, and other insults because I denouce the warmongering policies of the neocons as counter productive to the goal of ending the threat of terrorism. The hard cold fact of the matter is that such people make specific accusations for which they have no evidence -- zero, zip, zilch, nada -- so they can sit in court and split hairs about the meaning of "is" all they like. The bottom line is, if they can't prove what they say about me, that's slander, and I win. And I get my damages and legal fees and restraining orders and published retractions, and the longer they fight it, the more media images I have of them ineffectually squirming like spineless little worms. Happy. :)

So, as long as they just spit their venom on forums like this, then "fuck you" and similar brush-offs is all they need, but if we were ever to cross real life paths and they were to start their shit in public, then there'd be a fight.

Why is there a need for you to defend yourself in the first place?

Because reputations can easily be destroyed by an allegation, founded or unfounded. Even if nothing is proven, people remember the accusation, not the retraction. Actress X is accused by a tabloid of being a homophobe because the pizza delivery driver she only tipped a quid happens to be gay. Any normal person would ask "What the f--- are you talking about? How do you get that?" But 10 years from now, she's tending bar because people stopped watching movies by the gay-hater.

Police detain you on allegations of terrorism. You're released due to lack of evidence. You still have an arrest on your record.

Mr Y is convicted of streaking the dean's office in college. Now he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Perfectly normal Mr Y now has children's advocacy groups protesting outside his house because he's living in their neighborhood and WON'T SOMEBODY PUHLEEZE THINK OF THE CHILDREN. They follow him when he moves. He solves his problems with a bullet in the head.