>passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law.
WTF? This statement doesn't have a modicum of sense in it. Seeking to kidnap or murder in the context of terrorism[1] is an inchoate offence[0] that is definitely against the law in UK.
I am at total loss why would you defend Cameron on that. I am not from UK and I've been able to find relevant statutes and laws in 5 minutes. I am really interested, can you elaborate?
Relevant precedent[1]:
R v Barot [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 31.
Conspiracy to murder. Appellant trained as a terrorist and proposed terrorist attacks in America and Britain. One attack contemplated in Britain was to fill three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonate them in an underground car park with the expectation of causing hundreds of casualties. Guilty plea. A life sentence with a minimum term of 40 years should, save in quite exceptional circumstances, represent the maximum for a terrorist who set out to achieve mass murder but caused no physical harm. Minimum term reduced to 30 years.
Why would I defend him on the quote? To repeat and expand, soundbite quotes like this are the empty calories of politics -- incredibly delicious and good for getting you a quick jolt of energy!!! but ultimately not good for the overall health of critical thinking in the electorate at large, or even in your own brain, a shallow exercise in confirmation bias. I feel one should be particularly careful about this, especially where your own political enemies (or policies you don't like) are involved.
So skip the soundbites and the Two Minutes' Hate, as a rule; surely there's plenty to indict him with otherwise.
Soundbites are so prevalent precisely because they work. The other authoritarian side will be using them and many other methods of propaganda. I agree that in every individual case it is preferable to have a reasonable discussion, but that usually not possible. Not using soundbites like that is like bringing knife to a gunfight.
As long as soundbite as a talking point/ persuasion vessel doesn't misrepresent wider context of the statement(in this case it doesn't), I think it's fine to use them.
WTF? This statement doesn't have a modicum of sense in it. Seeking to kidnap or murder in the context of terrorism[1] is an inchoate offence[0] that is definitely against the law in UK.
I am at total loss why would you defend Cameron on that. I am not from UK and I've been able to find relevant statutes and laws in 5 minutes. I am really interested, can you elaborate?
Relevant precedent[1]:
R v Barot [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 31. Conspiracy to murder. Appellant trained as a terrorist and proposed terrorist attacks in America and Britain. One attack contemplated in Britain was to fill three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonate them in an underground car park with the expectation of causing hundreds of casualties. Guilty plea. A life sentence with a minimum term of 40 years should, save in quite exceptional circumstances, represent the maximum for a terrorist who set out to achieve mass murder but caused no physical harm. Minimum term reduced to 30 years.
[0]http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/#a01 [1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/solicit...