Nothing is black and white what works for one nation will not work for another (good point).

 

Osama Bin laden is a twisted little shit and is most definitely a terrorist. But so is che Guevara.

 

In light of this new information I have decided to post a new topic.

Thanks, James for your thorough answers.  I guess I've to elaborate a bit.  You're living in Great Britain, a first world country and it seems stable as a country; perhaps you can also say this if you're living in the U.S. or perhaps some other stable country.  (No matter what people say, your government will not fall.)  In the third world (I'm in one such country), and in democracies (like mine), the people are very vulnerable to all sorts of ideologies.  For example, our local communists (with their hammer and sickle) are still fighting the government until now (for decades), and if you flash the hammer and sickle, it may mean you are on their side, and these insurgents actually kill people in the countryside if they contradict them.

I used the swastika because it's well known, especially in World War II (just about 70 years ago), and also when the concentration camps were liberated (the camps were exposed to the media).  While Soviet/Russian concentration camps are also deadly, they are not as well known especially when there are many political parties in Europe calling themselves socialist, etc.  I'm only using the Nazis as an example, not totally absolving the communists, etc.

That's long, and I very well respect your opinions.  Thanks for replying...   I'm just around the site.  And going back to the original topic, (as closure for my comment) Bin Laden is a terrorist.

The swastika is an ancient symbol the meaning of which has been lost in time. For this alone it should not be banned it. Nazi, pro Osama, fascist, communist and Anti war campaign will upset some people, fact. Banning any of these voices will only drive them underground. We do not need a society with suppressive voices. In England the British National Party rose in popularity due to ill feeling towards Islam and immigration. Even though many were known racists and incited public disturbance they were allowed to campaign and the party started to become popular in certain areas. They actively campaigned, protested and allowed their BELIEFS to be made public. When this happened people realised what they were (a racist group with no real polices outside immigration) and their popularity decrease. If they were pushed underground and banned people may not have seen their true side and the popularity could have increased.

 

Why did you think of the Swastika and not the hammer and sickle.

 

The Nazi concentration camps were tame in comparison to the Russian communist yet now days it is fashionable to have clothing with Russian communist symbols. I guess they have been marketed better.

 

P.S my name is James

 

With due respects  Neflim in some places belief should be spelled believe (nouns to verbs).  Okay there's some confusion with Bin Laden.  Now, are you in favor of not banning the swastika, e.g?  I guess there's no confusion here.

There is hardly any evidence that he was the mastermind behind 9 11. I’m not saying he did not do it but it is dangerous to just belief what you are told.

 

In answer to 14-88 I have three points:

 

1: Ban is spelt with one N, try using spell check.

 

2: In the words of Noam Chomsky “if we do not belief in freedom of speech for people we despise, we do not belief in it at all”.

 

3: Any one with anti Israel sign on their blog is hardly qualified to decide who should be banned. I assume that you are able to have an intellectual argument of why Israel should not exist or you would not have that sign. I look forward to debating with you although I belief I will be disappointed.  

I wonder what the families of the people who died on september 11 would call him ?

"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." (Hamlet 2,2 269-270)  Everything is relative to a certain belief. 

Osama Bin Laden and his followers have carved the world into two factions (much like the bush administration) good and evil. The view is that the Muslim lands have been taken over by the west and anyone who is part off the west is therefore the enemy. He is fighting for the freedoms of the Islamic people in his view. Therefore by killing what we call innocent people he is attacking there oppressor.

 

 If you look at revolutionary such as Lennon and Che, OBL has done nothing different. But it is now quite common to see the picture of Che on peoples clothing and he is admired as one of the greatest freedom fighter of modern times.

 

As a side point it has never been proven he was the master mind behind 9 11 and contrary to popular believe he has never admitted to it.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.  One can be a freedom fighter and also a terrorist.  Criminals who kidnap people are terrorists.  A terrorist is one who doesn't care about the lives of human beings, and doesn't follow conventions of war or peace.  But in order to become a real freedom fighter, which is noble, one should shun all forms of terrorism.  In other words, the end does not justify the means.  In a few words: Bin Laden is a terrorist.