This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So I have got it clear in my head I understand that millions have demonstrated for the principle that the magazine Charlie Hebdo should have the freedom to publish 'satirical' material reflecting their views.
And at the same time http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post... a comedian is arrested for expressing his views. Again.
I'm trying to work out what is freedom of expression and what is 'incitement'. And not finding an answer.
And at the same time http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post... a comedian is arrested for expressing his views. Again.
I'm trying to work out what is freedom of expression and what is 'incitement'. And not finding an answer.
In reply to andyathome:
Been wondering similar stuff myself. It has been pointed out to me that intent is important (and no doubt hard to legislate for.)
A couple of current examples: It seems to me that the pope is fair game for p-taking after his remarkable "violence is normal when you're offended" performance on the plane the other day. Similarly the Saudi regime for it's reaction to Badawi's blog. There are good reasons for a clamour including some derision in response to their equally abhorrent behaviour and it seems there's even the chance they might listen.
Saying (or drawing) something that's solely intended to provoke a reaction seems to be where the law gets involved (for example Scotland's anti-sectarian law.) Of course, some would argue that the Danish or Charlie Hebdo cartoons do have a point beyond provocation and I guess that's where value disagreements start to appear.
The trouble is, the moment you allow one group's declaration that they're offended to dictate the law, where do you stop? I like Hitchen's quip - he said that whenever he reached a point in an debate where someone said "I am offended by that," he'd say "yes but what's your argument?"
Been wondering similar stuff myself. It has been pointed out to me that intent is important (and no doubt hard to legislate for.)
A couple of current examples: It seems to me that the pope is fair game for p-taking after his remarkable "violence is normal when you're offended" performance on the plane the other day. Similarly the Saudi regime for it's reaction to Badawi's blog. There are good reasons for a clamour including some derision in response to their equally abhorrent behaviour and it seems there's even the chance they might listen.
Saying (or drawing) something that's solely intended to provoke a reaction seems to be where the law gets involved (for example Scotland's anti-sectarian law.) Of course, some would argue that the Danish or Charlie Hebdo cartoons do have a point beyond provocation and I guess that's where value disagreements start to appear.
The trouble is, the moment you allow one group's declaration that they're offended to dictate the law, where do you stop? I like Hitchen's quip - he said that whenever he reached a point in an debate where someone said "I am offended by that," he'd say "yes but what's your argument?"
1
In reply to andyathome:
Obviously it depends on specific laws in different countries. But the general principle is that you have a right to express any opinion unless doing so affects others rights, such as the right not to be attacked. Not being offended isn't a right, for the very good reason that all anyone would have to do would be say 'I'm offended' to avoid an idea being criticised. Ideas need examination and criticism so we can choose good ones.
No idea what diedonne said but some rights groups are saying his arrest is unjustified.
Obviously it depends on specific laws in different countries. But the general principle is that you have a right to express any opinion unless doing so affects others rights, such as the right not to be attacked. Not being offended isn't a right, for the very good reason that all anyone would have to do would be say 'I'm offended' to avoid an idea being criticised. Ideas need examination and criticism so we can choose good ones.
No idea what diedonne said but some rights groups are saying his arrest is unjustified.
Post edited at 22:47
In reply to AdrianC:
I was just looking at the Danish cartoons again and the really are very very mild. No motive for outrage at all except in that they depict a face that represents Momo, really a storm in a tea cup especially as no one knows what he looked like, even the images of him painted for centuries before it was banned are all different.... unless you allow yourself to be whipped up by a bunch of fanatics like in Pakistan today.
> Of course, some would argue that the Danish or Charlie Hebdo cartoons do have a point beyond provocation
I was just looking at the Danish cartoons again and the really are very very mild. No motive for outrage at all except in that they depict a face that represents Momo, really a storm in a tea cup especially as no one knows what he looked like, even the images of him painted for centuries before it was banned are all different.... unless you allow yourself to be whipped up by a bunch of fanatics like in Pakistan today.
In reply to MG:
Dieudonné is in trouble because he satirised the wrong people. He's been released as often as he's been convicted though so maybe freedom of expression will survive for him once more. Basically it's all in the small print.... Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité are, and have always been to be taken with a pinch of salt, some people are still more equal that others.
Bedtime.
Dieudonné is in trouble because he satirised the wrong people. He's been released as often as he's been convicted though so maybe freedom of expression will survive for him once more. Basically it's all in the small print.... Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité are, and have always been to be taken with a pinch of salt, some people are still more equal that others.
Bedtime.
1
In reply to AdrianC:
The problem is what are people laughing at?
The provocative nature of the cartoons? Or the just the humor expressed in the cartoons?
I do agree with Bruce, some are very tame..
> BOf course, some would argue that the Danish or Charlie Hebdo cartoons do have a point beyond provocation and I guess that's where value disagreements start to appear.
> The trouble is, the moment you allow one group's declaration that they're offended to dictate the law, where do you stop? I like Hitchen's quip - he said that whenever he reached a point in an debate where someone said "I am offended by that," he'd say "yes but what's your argument?"
The problem is what are people laughing at?
The provocative nature of the cartoons? Or the just the humor expressed in the cartoons?
I do agree with Bruce, some are very tame..
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Yes they are very mild Bruce. But I guess neither you nor me are muslim and can possibly know how some people feel seeing or hearing something they find extremely offensive.
Yes they are very mild Bruce. But I guess neither you nor me are muslim and can possibly know how some people feel seeing or hearing something they find extremely offensive.
In reply to andyathome:
I think with freedom of speech comes a responsibility.
We can say what we want but generally we normally steer clear of saying anything that is going to be gravely offensive to the majority of people we intend saying it to because the majority of people don't like offending others.
When I was younger I must have offended many people in my trips around the world in the RN comitting various faux par 's, or other cultural no, no's Most people in this world knowing that people generally do not intend to offend generally forgive and forget such mistakes.
To the vast majority of muslims displaying or picturing any living creature is prohibited. Obviously images of their prophet which also have a little poke at him are extremely offensive to them. The phrase which prohibits this, is also in the bible - i've seen it in old churches, if taken literally also applies to us christians!
The problem in my view is how far do you say in our society that you can be free to say what you want without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome? As other posters have said, we do have laws to prevent incitement to crime or hatred and so on.
Perhaps its time to add to this and stop people being offensive to other people's religious beliefs?
I think with freedom of speech comes a responsibility.
We can say what we want but generally we normally steer clear of saying anything that is going to be gravely offensive to the majority of people we intend saying it to because the majority of people don't like offending others.
When I was younger I must have offended many people in my trips around the world in the RN comitting various faux par 's, or other cultural no, no's Most people in this world knowing that people generally do not intend to offend generally forgive and forget such mistakes.
To the vast majority of muslims displaying or picturing any living creature is prohibited. Obviously images of their prophet which also have a little poke at him are extremely offensive to them. The phrase which prohibits this, is also in the bible - i've seen it in old churches, if taken literally also applies to us christians!
The problem in my view is how far do you say in our society that you can be free to say what you want without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome? As other posters have said, we do have laws to prevent incitement to crime or hatred and so on.
Perhaps its time to add to this and stop people being offensive to other people's religious beliefs?
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
No. Offense is taken, not given. I know that the religious don't go out of their way not to offend my 'lower' atheist principles, so I see no reason why I should observe the edicts of every religion that a lawmaker can think of.
No. Offense is taken, not given. I know that the religious don't go out of their way not to offend my 'lower' atheist principles, so I see no reason why I should observe the edicts of every religion that a lawmaker can think of.
In reply to Dave Perry:
If we start censoring ourselves because our words might be offensive to someone based on an irrational belief they hold where does it stop. What happens if people who believe that cows are sacred animals say they are offended by other people eating them? What happens when religious people say they find women in short skirts or TV science programmes that contradict their religious belief offensive.
The underlying reason religious people take offense so easily is that when you can't defend your position with logic your only alternatives are confrontation and emotion or accepting you are wrong. I'm not sure that removing any challenge to religious belief on the grounds it might cause offense is the right response when secular people have just as much right to try and persuade people to abandon religion as religions have to try and convert people or keep children within their faith.
> Yes they are very mild Bruce. But I guess neither you nor me are muslim and can possibly know how some people feel seeing or hearing something they find extremely offensive.
If we start censoring ourselves because our words might be offensive to someone based on an irrational belief they hold where does it stop. What happens if people who believe that cows are sacred animals say they are offended by other people eating them? What happens when religious people say they find women in short skirts or TV science programmes that contradict their religious belief offensive.
The underlying reason religious people take offense so easily is that when you can't defend your position with logic your only alternatives are confrontation and emotion or accepting you are wrong. I'm not sure that removing any challenge to religious belief on the grounds it might cause offense is the right response when secular people have just as much right to try and persuade people to abandon religion as religions have to try and convert people or keep children within their faith.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Bruce's view is that to be offended you have to want to be offended.. which having seen a fair few of the cartoons is bollox.. some are incredibly tame, others deliberately provocative..
Bruce's view is that to be offended you have to want to be offended.. which having seen a fair few of the cartoons is bollox.. some are incredibly tame, others deliberately provocative..
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Not it's not, basically humor shouldn't be limited within reason, of course as the OP says you get a fine line between humor, incitement and racism.. it all depends on the context. For example 'Big Bang Theory' is packed full of racial/religious stereotypes with Howard and Raj, but they get away with it because of its context.
But when it does get closer to the line of whats acceptable you get more people offended, so there's very much a time and a place.. hence the 9 O clock watershed and satirical magazines.
Somebody will be offended by everything and anything.. Bruce is living proof of that.
Not it's not, basically humor shouldn't be limited within reason, of course as the OP says you get a fine line between humor, incitement and racism.. it all depends on the context. For example 'Big Bang Theory' is packed full of racial/religious stereotypes with Howard and Raj, but they get away with it because of its context.
But when it does get closer to the line of whats acceptable you get more people offended, so there's very much a time and a place.. hence the 9 O clock watershed and satirical magazines.
Somebody will be offended by everything and anything.. Bruce is living proof of that.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I would suggest that you might have a different view if you had stood between the EDL and the UAF, or even between rival football fans.
I agree with Dave Perry, even in the country with freeest speech in the West - the US - that speech comes with responsibilities and can be partially curtailed by law.
> No. Offense is taken, not given.
I would suggest that you might have a different view if you had stood between the EDL and the UAF, or even between rival football fans.
I agree with Dave Perry, even in the country with freeest speech in the West - the US - that speech comes with responsibilities and can be partially curtailed by law.
1
In reply to andyathome:
Not sure where take on this picture / article stands in all this:
http://news.sky.com/story/1407682/al-qaeda-in-yemen-claims-charlie-hebdo-at...
I posted else where this light hearted response "My first thought was "crikey it's a spliffed out wizard from a new Lord of the Rings movie" but alas I was wrong it was a boring religious nut job attempting to poke his own eye out (with any luck)! Or perhaps it's new deadly form Kung-Fu, Waggley Scary Finger Form of the Brain Dead."
Mildly amusing to some but could it be construed as incitement as some one some where may get offended by it? Should I be allowed to post that comment? What is meant by incitement? I ask because a whole host of comments or view points would incite certain elements of religious extremism to take inappropriate action?
Not sure where take on this picture / article stands in all this:
http://news.sky.com/story/1407682/al-qaeda-in-yemen-claims-charlie-hebdo-at...
I posted else where this light hearted response "My first thought was "crikey it's a spliffed out wizard from a new Lord of the Rings movie" but alas I was wrong it was a boring religious nut job attempting to poke his own eye out (with any luck)! Or perhaps it's new deadly form Kung-Fu, Waggley Scary Finger Form of the Brain Dead."
Mildly amusing to some but could it be construed as incitement as some one some where may get offended by it? Should I be allowed to post that comment? What is meant by incitement? I ask because a whole host of comments or view points would incite certain elements of religious extremism to take inappropriate action?
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
So you just want to behave anyway YOU choose to, even if its against the law? A bit like the murders in question?
So you just want to behave anyway YOU choose to, even if its against the law? A bit like the murders in question?
Post edited at 19:07
In reply to andyathome:
Yes its all a bit contradictory isn`t it. As usual The Now Show brings some clarity to the matter, listen to the first ten minutes of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xs4bb particularly interesting is the "audience reaction" to the Muslim comedian Tez Ilyas , is that a real audience or canned audience, if canned it is very good as the audience discomfort with what Tez Ilyas is saying is almost palpable. Give it a listen.
Yes its all a bit contradictory isn`t it. As usual The Now Show brings some clarity to the matter, listen to the first ten minutes of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xs4bb particularly interesting is the "audience reaction" to the Muslim comedian Tez Ilyas , is that a real audience or canned audience, if canned it is very good as the audience discomfort with what Tez Ilyas is saying is almost palpable. Give it a listen.
In reply to IainRUK:
In terms of psychology, we all 'choose how we feel', which is why, if you are really in touch with your own psyche you can't blame anyone else for how you feel. How we choose to internalise what others say to us is of course based on our own life experiences and reactions to others.
Relevant to this post is the obviously inescapable truth that you cannot therefore choose how others will react to your statements or behaviours. With this means most descent folk have a desire not to be so offensive that it deliberately hurts, annoys or upset others.
So I won't ever call your mother a whore, or slut, or deliberately wind someone up by making statements that are deeply, deeply hurtful, until they become violent towards me. Of course the ability to do this safely before the violence kicks in is something most of us do sometimes do and we sometimes get it wrong. Young males especially - its how many fights happen isn't it? "You wuz looking at my burd you w*nker!!".
So we mostly guess where to draw the line. We anticipate how someone will react and try to balance our freedom of expression with the feelings of others.
We don't actually have completely 'free speech'. You cannot incite hatred. You cannot spread slanderous gossip, you cannot incite someone to hit, fight or commit illegal acts and we no longer use words like niggers, queers, pakkis, homos and most people avoid the 'c' word. Because it offends others, thats why football fans shout raciest comments to footballers isn't it - because it offends.
Just because you do not find something offensive doesn't mean others won't either. Most people, perhaps not Tom-from Edinburgh, therefore do censure ourselves to a greater or lessor extent.
What we as individuals, and as a society as a whole, is try to get this balance right -
We cannot therefore alter how others feel - but you can choose how you behave!!
In terms of psychology, we all 'choose how we feel', which is why, if you are really in touch with your own psyche you can't blame anyone else for how you feel. How we choose to internalise what others say to us is of course based on our own life experiences and reactions to others.
Relevant to this post is the obviously inescapable truth that you cannot therefore choose how others will react to your statements or behaviours. With this means most descent folk have a desire not to be so offensive that it deliberately hurts, annoys or upset others.
So I won't ever call your mother a whore, or slut, or deliberately wind someone up by making statements that are deeply, deeply hurtful, until they become violent towards me. Of course the ability to do this safely before the violence kicks in is something most of us do sometimes do and we sometimes get it wrong. Young males especially - its how many fights happen isn't it? "You wuz looking at my burd you w*nker!!".
So we mostly guess where to draw the line. We anticipate how someone will react and try to balance our freedom of expression with the feelings of others.
We don't actually have completely 'free speech'. You cannot incite hatred. You cannot spread slanderous gossip, you cannot incite someone to hit, fight or commit illegal acts and we no longer use words like niggers, queers, pakkis, homos and most people avoid the 'c' word. Because it offends others, thats why football fans shout raciest comments to footballers isn't it - because it offends.
Just because you do not find something offensive doesn't mean others won't either. Most people, perhaps not Tom-from Edinburgh, therefore do censure ourselves to a greater or lessor extent.
What we as individuals, and as a society as a whole, is try to get this balance right -
We cannot therefore alter how others feel - but you can choose how you behave!!
In reply to Dave Perry:
Why particularly religious beliefs? Who judges if something is offensive? What happens if I want to question their beliefs' effects on society? How would Darwin have managed to present evolution under your scheme? I don't think you have really thought this through.
Why particularly religious beliefs? Who judges if something is offensive? What happens if I want to question their beliefs' effects on society? How would Darwin have managed to present evolution under your scheme? I don't think you have really thought this through.
Post edited at 20:00
In reply to SCrossley:
But he was using humour and mocking people. Surely he needs banning in case he offends some one?
But he was using humour and mocking people. Surely he needs banning in case he offends some one?
In reply to MG:
I assume you wish me to lower myself to your level of insults?
Perhaps you aught to get your mummy or daddy to explain why we have numerous laws - which I've mentioned - which curtail somewhat our so called 'freedom of speech'.
Oh, dear!! I've broken my promise not to have lowered myself to your level. Just shows you how we are all human underneath.
I assume you wish me to lower myself to your level of insults?
Perhaps you aught to get your mummy or daddy to explain why we have numerous laws - which I've mentioned - which curtail somewhat our so called 'freedom of speech'.
Oh, dear!! I've broken my promise not to have lowered myself to your level. Just shows you how we are all human underneath.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Eh? I asked perfectly reasonable questions about your scheme, which you entirely avoid, and then claim I am some how being insulting! This is *exactly* why we can't use "offence* as a criterion of what people can say! Some people take offence at pretty much anything, so any discussion would be impossible.
Eh? I asked perfectly reasonable questions about your scheme, which you entirely avoid, and then claim I am some how being insulting! This is *exactly* why we can't use "offence* as a criterion of what people can say! Some people take offence at pretty much anything, so any discussion would be impossible.
In reply to Dave Perry:
I am not against people censoring themselves and making a free decision to limit their speech. What I am against is the state limiting freedom of speech (or news organisations not reporting properly) because people might take offense based on an irrational belief.
I don't have a problem in principle with laws that restrict speech because it is offensive and untrue. I also don't have a problem with laws that prevent incitement to violence. I think in general we should be far more concerned about whether statements are true than whether someone might find them offensive. If people focus on establishing the truth and presenting arguments for their position based on evidence and logic the result is progress. "You can't say that because I am offended" doesn't move our understanding forward.
> Just because you do not find something offensive doesn't mean others won't either. Most people, perhaps not Tom-from Edinburgh, therefore do censure ourselves to a greater or lessor extent.
I am not against people censoring themselves and making a free decision to limit their speech. What I am against is the state limiting freedom of speech (or news organisations not reporting properly) because people might take offense based on an irrational belief.
I don't have a problem in principle with laws that restrict speech because it is offensive and untrue. I also don't have a problem with laws that prevent incitement to violence. I think in general we should be far more concerned about whether statements are true than whether someone might find them offensive. If people focus on establishing the truth and presenting arguments for their position based on evidence and logic the result is progress. "You can't say that because I am offended" doesn't move our understanding forward.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If I call someone a n%%%%%r it might be completely true in the sense of what the word means - it's still highly offensive though.
> I am not against people censoring themselves and making a free decision to limit their speech. What I am against is the state limiting freedom of speech (or news organisations not reporting properly) because people might take offense based on an irrational belief.
> I don't have a problem in principle with laws that restrict speech because it is offensive and untrue. I also don't have a problem with laws that prevent incitement to violence. I think in general we should be far more concerned about whether statements are true than whether someone might find them offensive. If people focus on establishing the truth and presenting arguments for their position based on evidence and logic the result is progress. "You can't say that because I am offended" doesn't move our understanding forward.
If I call someone a n%%%%%r it might be completely true in the sense of what the word means - it's still highly offensive though.
In reply to Dave Perry:
But that's their problem not mine. I find what some people from various religions do offensive, to put it mildly, which is my problem not theirs... unless they break the law like murdering people, for example, in which case hopefully it will also become theirs.
But that's their problem not mine. I find what some people from various religions do offensive, to put it mildly, which is my problem not theirs... unless they break the law like murdering people, for example, in which case hopefully it will also become theirs.
1
In reply to off-duty:
There is difference between being free to say things and forcing others to listen. Harassment is rightly outlawed. I don't think (hope) racial slurs as such are banned, or, for example, we would have to start censoring Conrad.
There is difference between being free to say things and forcing others to listen. Harassment is rightly outlawed. I don't think (hope) racial slurs as such are banned, or, for example, we would have to start censoring Conrad.
Post edited at 21:34
In reply to Dave Perry:
Speak for yourself, most people reading this thread aren't christians.
Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law. I certainly hope the police will enforce the law for christians as they do for other religious extremists.
> i've seen it in old churches, if taken literally also applies to us christians!
Speak for yourself, most people reading this thread aren't christians.
> without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome?
Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law. I certainly hope the police will enforce the law for christians as they do for other religious extremists.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
At a slight tangent to what you are saying, we (in the West) tend to be quick to take the moral high ground and assume that we are better informed by our press than we are. As an example, I read several papers today with bar charts of "Foreign fighters with ISIS" or "... in Syria", broken out by nationality, and they were *utterly and completely different*, depending on the media outlet and the "sources". (Google images will show you what I mean.)
At a slight tangent to what you are saying, we (in the West) tend to be quick to take the moral high ground and assume that we are better informed by our press than we are. As an example, I read several papers today with bar charts of "Foreign fighters with ISIS" or "... in Syria", broken out by nationality, and they were *utterly and completely different*, depending on the media outlet and the "sources". (Google images will show you what I mean.)
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Most posters here are white, Anglo Saxon Christians by race and basic values.
Most posters here are white, Anglo Saxon Christians by race and basic values.
In reply to MG:
That's my point! You, not me thought you asked a perfectly reasonable question.
I did not mention any "scheme" so I dont understand what you mean.
That's my point! You, not me thought you asked a perfectly reasonable question.
I did not mention any "scheme" so I dont understand what you mean.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I can't see anything I have said which implies in any way a justification for breaking any law.
I can't see anything I have said which implies in any way a justification for breaking any law.
In reply to Dave Perry:
You had "Perhaps its time to add to this and stop people being offensive to other people's religious beliefs?" to which I asked questions. If you found them, "insulting" or unreasonable there is not much I can say to convince you otherwise, but I am very glad you are not the majority!
> That's my point! You, not me thought you asked a perfectly reasonable question.
> I did not mention any "scheme" so I dont understand what you mean.
You had "Perhaps its time to add to this and stop people being offensive to other people's religious beliefs?" to which I asked questions. If you found them, "insulting" or unreasonable there is not much I can say to convince you otherwise, but I am very glad you are not the majority!
In reply to Dave Perry:
Not many are Christians, as comes out quite clearly every time there is a discussion about religion. You are, apparently, Tim Chappel is (inevitable with a name like that) and one are two others but the majority don't appear to be. I think it's a big mistake to assume most whites are Christians, as many Muslims seem to. Most of us have dropped religion.
Not many are Christians, as comes out quite clearly every time there is a discussion about religion. You are, apparently, Tim Chappel is (inevitable with a name like that) and one are two others but the majority don't appear to be. I think it's a big mistake to assume most whites are Christians, as many Muslims seem to. Most of us have dropped religion.
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
What arethe Christian race and values?
(My apologies if you find this offensive, or insulting)...
> Most posters here are white, Anglo Saxon Christians by race and basic values
What arethe Christian race and values?
(My apologies if you find this offensive, or insulting)...
In reply to MG:
Actually I obviously misunderstood your postings!, as I assume you misunderstood mine.
Actually I obviously misunderstood your postings!, as I assume you misunderstood mine.
In reply to Dave Perry:
When you say; "The problem in my view is how far do you say in our society that you can be free to say what you want without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome?"
You appear to be coming very close to saying the recent "outcome" - the death of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo - was the "responsibility" of those who used their right to "free speech" "going too far". Maybe that's not what you meant. With all the new laws we all have to be careful what we say, freedom of speech or not.
On a more serious note I find any suggestion that the perfectly legal use of freedom of expression in a humoristic or polemical context justifies mass murder totally unacceptable. It's a point that has to be clarified to many people who take their religion too seriously.
When you say; "The problem in my view is how far do you say in our society that you can be free to say what you want without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome?"
You appear to be coming very close to saying the recent "outcome" - the death of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo - was the "responsibility" of those who used their right to "free speech" "going too far". Maybe that's not what you meant. With all the new laws we all have to be careful what we say, freedom of speech or not.
On a more serious note I find any suggestion that the perfectly legal use of freedom of expression in a humoristic or polemical context justifies mass murder totally unacceptable. It's a point that has to be clarified to many people who take their religion too seriously.
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
Im trying to understand what the hell you are saying! What is the Christian race!?
Im trying to understand what the hell you are saying! What is the Christian race!?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Absolutely no way do I intend to justify a bunch of murders!
I'm probably ly like the majority in the UK and be the first to suggest hanging them.
Absolutely no way do I intend to justify a bunch of murders!
I'm probably ly like the majority in the UK and be the first to suggest hanging them.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I don't think he's saying that at all. I like almost everyone would echo the comments of the (muslim) mayor of Rotterdam or even the Muslim council of Britain in condemning the murdering scum involved.
However I think it's quite reasonable to defend to the death the right of free speech - whilst also despairing of the use that is made of it - perhaps using the model of the murdered police officer Ahmed Merabet whose brother spoke so eloquently.
I agree. Other than some Islamist loons the only other person I have seen who appears to be drawing that link (though perhaps in a light ink) is the co-founder of Charlie Hebdo :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-He...
> When you say; "The problem in my view is how far do you say in our society that you can be free to say what you want without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome?"
> You appear to be coming very close to saying the recent "outcome" - the death of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo - was the "responsibility" of those who used their right to "free speech" "going too far". Maybe that's not what you meant. With all the new laws we all have to be careful what we say, freedom of speech or not.
I don't think he's saying that at all. I like almost everyone would echo the comments of the (muslim) mayor of Rotterdam or even the Muslim council of Britain in condemning the murdering scum involved.
However I think it's quite reasonable to defend to the death the right of free speech - whilst also despairing of the use that is made of it - perhaps using the model of the murdered police officer Ahmed Merabet whose brother spoke so eloquently.
> On a more serious note I find any suggestion that the perfectly legal use of freedom of expression in a humoristic or polemical context justifies mass murder totally unacceptable. It's a point that has to be clarified to many people who take their religion too seriously.
I agree. Other than some Islamist loons the only other person I have seen who appears to be drawing that link (though perhaps in a light ink) is the co-founder of Charlie Hebdo :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-He...
In reply to Dave Perry:
What are basic Christian values?
By that, I mean values that aren't pretty universal.
What are basic Christian values?
By that, I mean values that aren't pretty universal.
In reply to off-duty:
If you are a white cop then yes. If you are a black rap singer then no.
Something can obviously be both factually true, historically relevant and extremely offensive to many people. We have come to terms with our own history by letting the unpleasant facts come out: it is no secret that various kings of Scotland, England and Popes have done some extremely questionable things up to and including infanticide. This knowledge has made us much more skeptical about the ethics of royalty and religious leaders which is a good thing. You don't find Anglicans idolizing Henry VIII the founder of the Church of England because everyone knows the history of his 6 wives. But 6 wives is pretty tame compared with at least 11 (including a slave bride, a relation by marriage and a child) in a case which seems to be socially unacceptable to mention in case it causes offence.
> If I call someone a n%%%%%r it might be completely true in the sense of what the word means - it's still highly offensive though.
If you are a white cop then yes. If you are a black rap singer then no.
Something can obviously be both factually true, historically relevant and extremely offensive to many people. We have come to terms with our own history by letting the unpleasant facts come out: it is no secret that various kings of Scotland, England and Popes have done some extremely questionable things up to and including infanticide. This knowledge has made us much more skeptical about the ethics of royalty and religious leaders which is a good thing. You don't find Anglicans idolizing Henry VIII the founder of the Church of England because everyone knows the history of his 6 wives. But 6 wives is pretty tame compared with at least 11 (including a slave bride, a relation by marriage and a child) in a case which seems to be socially unacceptable to mention in case it causes offence.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Go on?
How the hell have I done that?
Not for one moment..
You did after Boston.. Showing no empathy said it was The US reaping that it sowed and no different to what happens daily in Iraq...
Yet so does murdering journalists..
As I said not one iota of integrity in that old body of yours ...
Go on?
How the hell have I done that?
Not for one moment..
You did after Boston.. Showing no empathy said it was The US reaping that it sowed and no different to what happens daily in Iraq...
Yet so does murdering journalists..
As I said not one iota of integrity in that old body of yours ...
In reply to Dave Perry:
So do you wish to avoid offending extend to say, UKIP members or fringe American Christian religious groups? Or do think that these are fair game and should be the target of the maximum possible level of ridicule, sneering, dismissal and the most offensive cartoons, comments and jibes possible, quite irrespective of whether the ridicule is justified or is a wildly exaggerated straw man of their beliefs?
So why should muslims have any right to prohibit what people who are not Muslims in advanced Western democracies say or do? It is not as if most of us believe there are such things as prophets or that Muhamed was in any way a "perfect man". We are not muslims, think that that religion is both absurd and dangerous and would only ever convert to it at the point of a gun (which is of course far from impossible).
Would you allow any religious group to have a veto on what was said, done or displayed, or just those religious groups whose more fanatical adherents tend to blow innocents up with suicide vests or burst into the offices of newspapers they don't like and kill as many people as possible with automatic weapons? Is your motive for such supposed high-minded tolerance of the violently intolerant benevolence or simply cowardice?
As to the argument that muslims are living in the West and therefore have a say in the matter, the riposte is simple. They moved here of their own free will, they should adapt to Western culture, not the other way around. If they don't like that proposition, there's the door, don't let it slam behind you when you leave forever.
These are often very bad laws, also you are talking about 2 entirely different things, violent crime and hatred.
There is no good reason to forbid hatred of particular groups, if there were, quite a few left-wingers would be liable to arrest for their openly stated hatred of the Conservatives or UKIP, while they are quite open in their desire to incite similar hatred in others. Incitement to violence is quite another matter, because it involves real harm to the targets, it is also much more tangible - though in fact left-wingers on a more or less daily basis are quite open in calling for the murder of their political opponents, not that any action is ever taken against them for this.
So incitement to violence should certainly be illegal, incitement to hatred is nonsense and should be got rid of, not least because it is entirely tendentious and subjective and is never applied in anything like an even-handed or consistent way. Nor should one restriction of free speech be used as an excuse for a further restriction, that is simply salami slicing away until there is no freedom left, rather restriction on freedom of speech should be kept to the absolute minimum.
Perhaps it is not, when that religion is primitive, intolerant, aggressive and barbaric. Religion is after all just a set of ideas and beliefs, there is no obvious reason why it should be protected from criticism or ridicule any more than say Marxism, Conservatism, dedication to the EU project or whatever.
Many centuries of difficult, bloody, inconsistent struggle brought us in Europe to a relatively tolerant, open society. Why should we abandon the progress of those centuries almost overnight to satisfy the arbitrary demands of a violent cult? Especially as those demands are in any case insatiable, they grow by what they feed on, the more concessions (or rather surrenders), one makes, the greater and more outrageous the next demand.
> I think with freedom of speech comes a responsibility.
> We can say what we want but generally we normally steer clear of saying anything that is going to be gravely offensive to the majority of people we intend saying it to because the majority of people don't like offending others.
So do you wish to avoid offending extend to say, UKIP members or fringe American Christian religious groups? Or do think that these are fair game and should be the target of the maximum possible level of ridicule, sneering, dismissal and the most offensive cartoons, comments and jibes possible, quite irrespective of whether the ridicule is justified or is a wildly exaggerated straw man of their beliefs?
> To the vast majority of muslims displaying or picturing any living creature is prohibited. Obviously images of their prophet which also have a little poke at him are extremely offensive to them.
So why should muslims have any right to prohibit what people who are not Muslims in advanced Western democracies say or do? It is not as if most of us believe there are such things as prophets or that Muhamed was in any way a "perfect man". We are not muslims, think that that religion is both absurd and dangerous and would only ever convert to it at the point of a gun (which is of course far from impossible).
Would you allow any religious group to have a veto on what was said, done or displayed, or just those religious groups whose more fanatical adherents tend to blow innocents up with suicide vests or burst into the offices of newspapers they don't like and kill as many people as possible with automatic weapons? Is your motive for such supposed high-minded tolerance of the violently intolerant benevolence or simply cowardice?
As to the argument that muslims are living in the West and therefore have a say in the matter, the riposte is simple. They moved here of their own free will, they should adapt to Western culture, not the other way around. If they don't like that proposition, there's the door, don't let it slam behind you when you leave forever.
> As other posters have said, we do have laws to prevent incitement to crime or hatred and so on.
These are often very bad laws, also you are talking about 2 entirely different things, violent crime and hatred.
There is no good reason to forbid hatred of particular groups, if there were, quite a few left-wingers would be liable to arrest for their openly stated hatred of the Conservatives or UKIP, while they are quite open in their desire to incite similar hatred in others. Incitement to violence is quite another matter, because it involves real harm to the targets, it is also much more tangible - though in fact left-wingers on a more or less daily basis are quite open in calling for the murder of their political opponents, not that any action is ever taken against them for this.
So incitement to violence should certainly be illegal, incitement to hatred is nonsense and should be got rid of, not least because it is entirely tendentious and subjective and is never applied in anything like an even-handed or consistent way. Nor should one restriction of free speech be used as an excuse for a further restriction, that is simply salami slicing away until there is no freedom left, rather restriction on freedom of speech should be kept to the absolute minimum.
> Perhaps its time to add to this and stop people being offensive to other people's religious beliefs?
Perhaps it is not, when that religion is primitive, intolerant, aggressive and barbaric. Religion is after all just a set of ideas and beliefs, there is no obvious reason why it should be protected from criticism or ridicule any more than say Marxism, Conservatism, dedication to the EU project or whatever.
Many centuries of difficult, bloody, inconsistent struggle brought us in Europe to a relatively tolerant, open society. Why should we abandon the progress of those centuries almost overnight to satisfy the arbitrary demands of a violent cult? Especially as those demands are in any case insatiable, they grow by what they feed on, the more concessions (or rather surrenders), one makes, the greater and more outrageous the next demand.
Post edited at 09:55
1
In reply to off-duty:
The co-founder of Charlie Hebdo Henri Roussel (also called Detheil de Ton) left CH in 1975, 40 years ago. For me, he doesn't represent CH
The co-founder of Charlie Hebdo Henri Roussel (also called Detheil de Ton) left CH in 1975, 40 years ago. For me, he doesn't represent CH
In reply to Dave Perry:
Well you're correct on two of those I suppose.
> Most posters here are white, Anglo Saxon Christians by race and basic values.
Well you're correct on two of those I suppose.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I bet Dieudonne is not going to be convicted. His Facebook post was misunderstood as support for terrorism but it clearly wasn't.
> Dieudonné is in trouble because he satirised the wrong people. He's been released as often as he's been convicted though so maybe freedom of expression will survive for him once more. Basically it's all in the small print.... Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité are, and have always been to be taken with a pinch of salt, some people are still more equal that others.
I bet Dieudonne is not going to be convicted. His Facebook post was misunderstood as support for terrorism but it clearly wasn't.
I don't think it's so difficult to understand that having a right doesn't mean you have to exercise that right to its very limits disengaging the brain while doing so. And just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it is not wrong.
People is supposed to exercise a degree of common sense and self-restraint, and it is when people shows time and again they are unable to do so that laws are introduced to curb those meatheads. In fact, the surefire way of losing rights and freedoms is to exercise those irresponsibly so that regulations and laws end up being introduced.
How many people would encourage their children to tell everyone in school, constantly, that Little Johnny's mum is a slug (she is). Putting a cartoon in the school's paper portraying her as such? Going to Little Johnny and saying to his face "Your mum is a slug."? Or do we teach our children that is not nice to do or say things to people that may cause them extreme offense? Even if they are true. And not illegal. And we have the right to do so.
In reply to MG:
PM on Pope comments: 'There is a right to cause offence'
Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA) make it an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
In 2006 the Racial and Religious Hatred Act amended the POA to make it an offence punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, to use threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up religious hatred;
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protes...
Yep, talking sense indeed (??!!)
PM on Pope comments: 'There is a right to cause offence'
Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA) make it an offence for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
In 2006 the Racial and Religious Hatred Act amended the POA to make it an offence punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, to use threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up religious hatred;
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protes...
Yep, talking sense indeed (??!!)
Post edited at 13:06
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Your point? The wording "grossly offensive" in the (contentious) communcaitons act perhaps places some small limitations on the right to offend when using certain media, the other laws you quote don't.
Your point? The wording "grossly offensive" in the (contentious) communcaitons act perhaps places some small limitations on the right to offend when using certain media, the other laws you quote don't.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Doing so would be harassment and bullying which is clearly not permitted.
I think the harm principle and the hatred criteria is a good limit for freedom of speech, and most of the time the distinction is very clear. When it is not clear well we have courts to look into this kind of issues.
> How many people would encourage their children to tell everyone in school, constantly, that Little Johnny's mum is a slug (she is). Putting a cartoon in the school's paper portraying her as such? Going to Little Johnny and saying to his face "Your mum is a slug."? Or do we teach our children that is not nice to do or say things to people that may cause them extreme offense? Even if they are true. And not illegal. And we have the right to do so.
Doing so would be harassment and bullying which is clearly not permitted.
I think the harm principle and the hatred criteria is a good limit for freedom of speech, and most of the time the distinction is very clear. When it is not clear well we have courts to look into this kind of issues.
Post edited at 13:14
In reply to Simon4:
Quite agree.
> Many centuries of difficult, bloody, inconsistent struggle brought us in Europe to a relatively tolerant, open society. Why should we abandon the progress of those centuries almost overnight to satisfy the arbitrary demands of a violent cult? Especially as those demands are in any case insatiable, they grow by what they feed on, the more concessions (or rather surrenders), one makes, the greater and more outrageous the next demand.
Quite agree.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
It would be harassment if the intention was to piss off Little Johnny. But what if your kid found it genuinely hilarious that Little Johnny's mum is a slug and, without intention to piss off Little Johnny, keeps throwing punchlines and jokes about it? (Letting slide in the analogy that some of the stuff around is intentionally provocative)
ETA: Intent is a clear 'definer' (?) in what constitutes harassment
It would be harassment if the intention was to piss off Little Johnny. But what if your kid found it genuinely hilarious that Little Johnny's mum is a slug and, without intention to piss off Little Johnny, keeps throwing punchlines and jokes about it? (Letting slide in the analogy that some of the stuff around is intentionally provocative)
ETA: Intent is a clear 'definer' (?) in what constitutes harassment
Post edited at 13:35
In reply to RomTheBear:
That's his humour, very close to the wind and ambiguous. The problem with all these new laws is that humour will end up being limited to slapstick and custard pies. I got into a very nasty row with my French in-laws about Dieudonné though, now he is yet another subject we have to avoid.
That's his humour, very close to the wind and ambiguous. The problem with all these new laws is that humour will end up being limited to slapstick and custard pies. I got into a very nasty row with my French in-laws about Dieudonné though, now he is yet another subject we have to avoid.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Your example is not relevant as the sluginess or not of Johnny's mum is not responsible for untold suffering throughout the world. Using satire to denounce the horrors carried out in the name of a religion or whatever is on a totally different level.
Anyway keep Johnny's mother out of it, I think she's quite nice... it's on the personal level, she hasn't beheaded anyone as far as I know.
> How many people would encourage their children to tell everyone in school, constantly, that Little Johnny's mum is a slug
Your example is not relevant as the sluginess or not of Johnny's mum is not responsible for untold suffering throughout the world. Using satire to denounce the horrors carried out in the name of a religion or whatever is on a totally different level.
Anyway keep Johnny's mother out of it, I think she's quite nice... it's on the personal level, she hasn't beheaded anyone as far as I know.
In reply to off-duty:
I think the word you are ridiculously skirting around is 'nigger'? Though you've stuck an extra symbol in there so I'm not sure. You're as sad as radio 4. Have a quick read of 'Huckleberry Finn'. And let's not foreget that loveable little rascal of a dog in 'The Dambusters'. It's just a word - a collection of symbols or sounds. It's existed for a long time ('negars' in 1619). Get over it. It's the thought process that underlies the word that is the problem. And in some contexts it isn't offensive but a term of mutual bonding. Go figure.
Of course you might be referencing a different word so disgraceful that I'm glad it's you that knows of its existence rather than me.
> If I call someone a n%%%%%r it might be completely true in the sense of what the word means - it's still highly offensive though.
I think the word you are ridiculously skirting around is 'nigger'? Though you've stuck an extra symbol in there so I'm not sure. You're as sad as radio 4. Have a quick read of 'Huckleberry Finn'. And let's not foreget that loveable little rascal of a dog in 'The Dambusters'. It's just a word - a collection of symbols or sounds. It's existed for a long time ('negars' in 1619). Get over it. It's the thought process that underlies the word that is the problem. And in some contexts it isn't offensive but a term of mutual bonding. Go figure.
Of course you might be referencing a different word so disgraceful that I'm glad it's you that knows of its existence rather than me.
In reply to Hyphin:
Sorry - don't understand that at all. You are saying that it's OK to mock people / things but not OK to suggest that it's OK to kill? I'd sort of agree with that but would also suggest that there are many situations where 'we' do say its quite alright to kill.
Sorry - don't understand that at all. You are saying that it's OK to mock people / things but not OK to suggest that it's OK to kill? I'd sort of agree with that but would also suggest that there are many situations where 'we' do say its quite alright to kill.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
If there is no intent to harm it's not harassment but could be considered as bullying. Not illegal in itself but schools will have behavioural policies to deal with this.
> It would be harassment if the intention was to piss off Little Johnny. But what if your kid found it genuinely hilarious that Little Johnny's mum is a slug and, without intention to piss off Little Johnny, keeps throwing punchlines and jokes about it? (Letting slide in the analogy that some of the stuff around is intentionally provocative)
> ETA: Intent is a clear 'definer' (?) in what constitutes harassment
If there is no intent to harm it's not harassment but could be considered as bullying. Not illegal in itself but schools will have behavioural policies to deal with this.
In reply to RomTheBear:
As said before it's hard to imagine that they didn't have an idea that some of the cartoons were insulting to many followers of Islam and that was part of the humor, how provocative it was, not just the humor in the cartoon..
We don't know ..
Bruce will know.. He knows what people mean and who tells the truth...
But I 100% agree with Mr Lopes above..
> If there is no intent to harm it's not harassment but could be considered as bullying. Not illegal in itself but schools will have behavioural policies to deal with this.
As said before it's hard to imagine that they didn't have an idea that some of the cartoons were insulting to many followers of Islam and that was part of the humor, how provocative it was, not just the humor in the cartoon..
We don't know ..
Bruce will know.. He knows what people mean and who tells the truth...
But I 100% agree with Mr Lopes above..
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
To be honest, Bruce, I read the quote you have used very differently. If I indulge in anti-semitism I have to accept responsibility for any outcome - likely prosecution in France If I am part of a military culture that encourages expressions that our 'enemies' are uncultured 'towel-heads' I have to accept responsibility for possible over indulgence in violence. If I deliberately provoke a religious group ('Have you seen the hats those Belgian Jews wear - what are they like!!!!!') I have to accept that that religious group might take exception. That's responsibility.
To simply take the piss irrespective of the outcome is irresponsibility.
And I do have to say that 'With all the new laws we all have to be careful what we say, freedom of speech or not.' is absolutely bloody priceless!
> "The problem in my view is how far do you say in our society that you can be free to say what you want without having to accept any responsibility for the outcome?"
> You appear to be coming very close to saying the recent "outcome" - the death of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo - was the "responsibility" of those who used their right to "free speech" "going too far". Maybe that's not what you meant. With all the new laws we all have to be careful what we say, freedom of speech or not.
To be honest, Bruce, I read the quote you have used very differently. If I indulge in anti-semitism I have to accept responsibility for any outcome - likely prosecution in France If I am part of a military culture that encourages expressions that our 'enemies' are uncultured 'towel-heads' I have to accept responsibility for possible over indulgence in violence. If I deliberately provoke a religious group ('Have you seen the hats those Belgian Jews wear - what are they like!!!!!') I have to accept that that religious group might take exception. That's responsibility.
To simply take the piss irrespective of the outcome is irresponsibility.
And I do have to say that 'With all the new laws we all have to be careful what we say, freedom of speech or not.' is absolutely bloody priceless!
In reply to Mr Lopez:
'Slug'?
'Your mum is a shell-less terrestrial gastropod', is a very strange level of playground banter. Did you perhaps misspell 'slag'?
'Slug'?
'Your mum is a shell-less terrestrial gastropod', is a very strange level of playground banter. Did you perhaps misspell 'slag'?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Welcome to the club I gave up talking about Dieudonne with people who don't make the effort to do their research. He is playing absurdly racist and biggoted characters to ridicule them but some people just take it at face value.
> That's his humour, very close to the wind and ambiguous. The problem with all these new laws is that humour will end up being limited to slapstick and custard pies. I got into a very nasty row with my French in-laws about Dieudonné though, now he is yet another subject we have to avoid.
Welcome to the club I gave up talking about Dieudonne with people who don't make the effort to do their research. He is playing absurdly racist and biggoted characters to ridicule them but some people just take it at face value.
In reply to andyathome:
If I deliberately provoke a religious group ('Have you seen the hats those Belgian Jews wear - what are they like!!!!!') I have to accept that that religious group might take exception. That's responsibility.
Do women who wear short skirts also have to "take responsibility" if something untoward happens to them?
If I deliberately provoke a religious group ('Have you seen the hats those Belgian Jews wear - what are they like!!!!!') I have to accept that that religious group might take exception. That's responsibility.
Do women who wear short skirts also have to "take responsibility" if something untoward happens to them?
In reply to andyathome:
It was written in response to a suggestion/implication that things were only offensive if they were false.
As you helpfully highlight, the context in which it is used can determine how offensive it is.
Clearly offence isn't solely something that is taken, but also something that is given.
> I think the word you are ridiculously skirting around is 'nigger'? Though you've stuck an extra symbol in there so I'm not sure. You're as sad as radio 4. Have a quick read of 'Huckleberry Finn'. And let's not foreget that loveable little rascal of a dog in 'The Dambusters'. It's just a word - a collection of symbols or sounds. It's existed for a long time ('negars' in 1619). Get over it. It's the thought process that underlies the word that is the problem. And in some contexts it isn't offensive but a term of mutual bonding. Go figure.
> Of course you might be referencing a different word so disgraceful that I'm glad it's you that knows of its existence rather than me.
It was written in response to a suggestion/implication that things were only offensive if they were false.
As you helpfully highlight, the context in which it is used can determine how offensive it is.
Clearly offence isn't solely something that is taken, but also something that is given.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
The liberty blog is out of date. "Insulting" has been removed from section 5 since Feb 2014 - conduct needs to be "abusive" which pretty much translates as "extremely offensive".
The liberty blog is out of date. "Insulting" has been removed from section 5 since Feb 2014 - conduct needs to be "abusive" which pretty much translates as "extremely offensive".
In reply to MG:
Don't be ridiculous! You're actually inverting what I said.
If the Jews in Belgium wear dumb hats I can freely point that out. That's my freedom and they don't have to take 'responsibility' for their stupid hats. They can also try to give me a kicking if they so wish. That's me accepting responsibility for my snide comments about their stupid hats. These things happen.
If I assume a woman wearing a short skirt is simply looking for a quick shag and act accordingly then I have to accept responsibility for my dumbness if I get a kick in the balls. Or are you suggesting that in reality all women wearing short skirts are actually trying, like a group of cartoonists, to provoke a reaction that looks at a prevailing sexism paradigm with a view to critiquing that? If so then you are just to ironic for me.
> If I deliberately provoke a religious group ('Have you seen the hats those Belgian Jews wear - what are they like!!!!!') I have to accept that that religious group might take exception. That's responsibility.
> Do women who wear short skirts also have to "take responsibility" if something untoward happens to them?
Don't be ridiculous! You're actually inverting what I said.
If the Jews in Belgium wear dumb hats I can freely point that out. That's my freedom and they don't have to take 'responsibility' for their stupid hats. They can also try to give me a kicking if they so wish. That's me accepting responsibility for my snide comments about their stupid hats. These things happen.
If I assume a woman wearing a short skirt is simply looking for a quick shag and act accordingly then I have to accept responsibility for my dumbness if I get a kick in the balls. Or are you suggesting that in reality all women wearing short skirts are actually trying, like a group of cartoonists, to provoke a reaction that looks at a prevailing sexism paradigm with a view to critiquing that? If so then you are just to ironic for me.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Blimey. I learn something about downright nasty sexual nastiness every day.
I think some of the posters in that urban dictionary should accept responsibility if they get a kick in the bollocks. For sheer offensiveness.
Blimey. I learn something about downright nasty sexual nastiness every day.
I think some of the posters in that urban dictionary should accept responsibility if they get a kick in the bollocks. For sheer offensiveness.
In reply to andyathome:
I am saying both wearing short skirts and poking fun at religions are both perfectly reasonable, legal things to do in a modern open society and that those who do them, for whatever reason, should not be blamed if they are attacked. You seem to think, like the pope, that if you get attacked for doing them, it is your own fault.
I am saying both wearing short skirts and poking fun at religions are both perfectly reasonable, legal things to do in a modern open society and that those who do them, for whatever reason, should not be blamed if they are attacked. You seem to think, like the pope, that if you get attacked for doing them, it is your own fault.
Post edited at 15:34
In reply to andyathome:
Some serious sidetracking here I think, surely the issue is not about whether or not you have the right to cause somebody else offence, its about whether or not it is acceptable for them to commit mass murder in revenge. The terrorists carrying out the Paris attack screamed some twaddle about avenging Mohammed.
Some serious sidetracking here I think, surely the issue is not about whether or not you have the right to cause somebody else offence, its about whether or not it is acceptable for them to commit mass murder in revenge. The terrorists carrying out the Paris attack screamed some twaddle about avenging Mohammed.
In reply to cragtaff:
I think it's a bit crazy to think if there was no cartoon we'd not have seen mass murder in France last week..
The cartoon was just an excuse.. a convenient target for which to justify it (which that muppet Brucey thinks I did.. idiot).
Had there been no cartoon thoe brothers would have attacked another convenient target... yet the response is all about free speech.. when attacks on free speech by ISIS/AQ have been common for the last 5 years..
Yet because it's happened in France its created a huge reaction, like the bombs in Boston did, but the reality is this is relatively common place in the middle east. The only difference is in both cases I think a huge reaction is understandable, firstly its unfathomable possibly hundreds so far have died as a reaction to some cartoons,. secondly we don't expect terrorist events in the west, even though they are part of daily life out in Iraq et al. Bruce thinks America caused it and said so with no humanity or empathy so soon after the bombs.. Yet Bruce seems to think in the case of Boston the American's shouldn't have been so up in arms.. yet the French should be... in the hypocritical way only he can..
I think it's a bit crazy to think if there was no cartoon we'd not have seen mass murder in France last week..
The cartoon was just an excuse.. a convenient target for which to justify it (which that muppet Brucey thinks I did.. idiot).
Had there been no cartoon thoe brothers would have attacked another convenient target... yet the response is all about free speech.. when attacks on free speech by ISIS/AQ have been common for the last 5 years..
Yet because it's happened in France its created a huge reaction, like the bombs in Boston did, but the reality is this is relatively common place in the middle east. The only difference is in both cases I think a huge reaction is understandable, firstly its unfathomable possibly hundreds so far have died as a reaction to some cartoons,. secondly we don't expect terrorist events in the west, even though they are part of daily life out in Iraq et al. Bruce thinks America caused it and said so with no humanity or empathy so soon after the bombs.. Yet Bruce seems to think in the case of Boston the American's shouldn't have been so up in arms.. yet the French should be... in the hypocritical way only he can..
Post edited at 16:59
In reply to IainRUK:
The point is the middle east has never had freedom of expression and hasn't been stable for decades if not centuries. Violence and attacks on journalists there are not news there. France has a long tradition of freedom of expression and this was directly attacked, as was its Jewish population. It's the combination of France and the attacks on these freedoms that makes it news, and means we should stand up to the threats to these freedoms, not acquiesce to violence. Sure the target could have been some other beacon of French freedoms - the parliament perhaps - which would have been just as newsworthy.
I see the latest episode in Islamic inspired violence top trumps has just occurred....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30873243
The point is the middle east has never had freedom of expression and hasn't been stable for decades if not centuries. Violence and attacks on journalists there are not news there. France has a long tradition of freedom of expression and this was directly attacked, as was its Jewish population. It's the combination of France and the attacks on these freedoms that makes it news, and means we should stand up to the threats to these freedoms, not acquiesce to violence. Sure the target could have been some other beacon of French freedoms - the parliament perhaps - which would have been just as newsworthy.
I see the latest episode in Islamic inspired violence top trumps has just occurred....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30873243
Post edited at 17:00
In reply to MG:
Yeah, but that was the same with the bombs...
And yeah what is newsworthy isn't a direct relationship with the numbers killed.. 17 in France is far more news worthy than 1000's of deaths in Nigeria.. maybe it shouldn't be but we can rationalise mass deaths out there as things that can never happen to us.. terrorist attacks out West can't be.
However I'd say personally random attacks scare me more for that reason. We can rationalise that the risks from terror are greater if you are involved in certain industries.. yet attacks like Madrid, London and 9/11 to name a few, were just totally random.. but so was the attack at the delhi.. it was just a convenient place as it was jewish business.. it could have been any of many businesses that day.
But those killers were waiting to be activated, hence the alienation is an issue... there will be more.
Yeah, but that was the same with the bombs...
And yeah what is newsworthy isn't a direct relationship with the numbers killed.. 17 in France is far more news worthy than 1000's of deaths in Nigeria.. maybe it shouldn't be but we can rationalise mass deaths out there as things that can never happen to us.. terrorist attacks out West can't be.
However I'd say personally random attacks scare me more for that reason. We can rationalise that the risks from terror are greater if you are involved in certain industries.. yet attacks like Madrid, London and 9/11 to name a few, were just totally random.. but so was the attack at the delhi.. it was just a convenient place as it was jewish business.. it could have been any of many businesses that day.
But those killers were waiting to be activated, hence the alienation is an issue... there will be more.
In reply to MG:
Which is exactly what the terrorists want... they wanted the protests.. further cartoons.. it's just perfect for them.
Regardless, the cartoons were just an excuse. They now have radicalised young people in France and other countries ready to carry out terror attacks.. Jewish businesses, the military, the press will no doubt be attacked more but I still think we'll see random killings like in the Kenyan mall.
> . It's the combination of France and the attacks on these freedoms that makes it news, and means we should stand up to the threats to these freedoms, not acquiesce to violence.
Which is exactly what the terrorists want... they wanted the protests.. further cartoons.. it's just perfect for them.
Regardless, the cartoons were just an excuse. They now have radicalised young people in France and other countries ready to carry out terror attacks.. Jewish businesses, the military, the press will no doubt be attacked more but I still think we'll see random killings like in the Kenyan mall.
In reply to IainRUK:
Its quite possible to simultaneously robustly stand up for the freedoms we have and deal with alienation and radicalisation. Giving up freedoms, not showing widespread support for those freedoms and trying to accommodate extremist views isn't the solution. It's not a question of giving a little bit of ground and everyone being happy - the extremists want every vestige of western life destroyed.
Its quite possible to simultaneously robustly stand up for the freedoms we have and deal with alienation and radicalisation. Giving up freedoms, not showing widespread support for those freedoms and trying to accommodate extremist views isn't the solution. It's not a question of giving a little bit of ground and everyone being happy - the extremists want every vestige of western life destroyed.
In reply to MG:
I know.. but likewise reducing the pool of support is important. The extremists are few in numbers but they are able to get support and people willing to die from the pool of alienated disenfranchised youths/people in western countries, sometimes white kids as well. The woman serving 10 years in prison in Philly for assisting in a plot to kill the Swedish Cartoonist was white.. (another old example of extremists trying to silence freedom of the press in the west.. )
we've been relatively happy just to throw some benefits at these people in these estates and ease our consciences.. but now we are starting to realise that these are the recruiting grounds we can't just ignore a sizeable portion of the population.
Maybe we do have to give some ground to pull people to the more moderate forms of Islam, the religion isn't going away and our current approach (like the US foreign policy) clearly isn't working..
> Its quite possible to simultaneously robustly stand up for the freedoms we have and deal with alienation and radicalisation. Giving up freedoms, not showing widespread support for those freedoms and trying to accommodate extremist views isn't the solution. It's not a question of giving a little bit of ground and everyone being happy - the extremists want every vestige of western life destroyed.
I know.. but likewise reducing the pool of support is important. The extremists are few in numbers but they are able to get support and people willing to die from the pool of alienated disenfranchised youths/people in western countries, sometimes white kids as well. The woman serving 10 years in prison in Philly for assisting in a plot to kill the Swedish Cartoonist was white.. (another old example of extremists trying to silence freedom of the press in the west.. )
we've been relatively happy just to throw some benefits at these people in these estates and ease our consciences.. but now we are starting to realise that these are the recruiting grounds we can't just ignore a sizeable portion of the population.
Maybe we do have to give some ground to pull people to the more moderate forms of Islam, the religion isn't going away and our current approach (like the US foreign policy) clearly isn't working..
Post edited at 17:18
In reply to IainRUK:
For example addressing this sort of horror properly and prosecuting those involved rather than pretending it didn't happen would be a good start.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/18/-sp-guantanamo-diary-the-tortu...
For example addressing this sort of horror properly and prosecuting those involved rather than pretending it didn't happen would be a good start.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/18/-sp-guantanamo-diary-the-tortu...
In reply to MG:
I know, at least they have virtually closed Guantanamo down.. are trying to pull troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, But they basically kidnapped people, sometimes say a cook at a terror camp, and would hold them for years before deciding they could be released..
I'm not sure they will ever prosecute over the torture, it's still split how necessary it was. It was debated a lot when the recent torture report came out a few months back..
But more pressingly is sorting out the racial inequality in the US.. it's still massive, despite Bruce's single - well this immigrant did well.. it's the same in the US, you do get people like Powell, Rice, Obama, but we still have a huge issue over crimes, police profiling, competency of legal defences provided..
I know, at least they have virtually closed Guantanamo down.. are trying to pull troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, But they basically kidnapped people, sometimes say a cook at a terror camp, and would hold them for years before deciding they could be released..
I'm not sure they will ever prosecute over the torture, it's still split how necessary it was. It was debated a lot when the recent torture report came out a few months back..
But more pressingly is sorting out the racial inequality in the US.. it's still massive, despite Bruce's single - well this immigrant did well.. it's the same in the US, you do get people like Powell, Rice, Obama, but we still have a huge issue over crimes, police profiling, competency of legal defences provided..
In reply to IainRUK:
I don't agree with you. I'm not sure that the terrorists want further cartoons. Are sure of that ? How can you be sure of that ?
For me terrorists want people and journalists to be scared (terrorised) and not to publish cartoons of other things that they don't wan't to see in the newspapers. Freedom of speech is very often the first freedom which is stopped in the authorian states.
And what about you. Are you shocked by Mo cartoons in Charlie Hebdo ?
I don't agree with you. I'm not sure that the terrorists want further cartoons. Are sure of that ? How can you be sure of that ?
For me terrorists want people and journalists to be scared (terrorised) and not to publish cartoons of other things that they don't wan't to see in the newspapers. Freedom of speech is very often the first freedom which is stopped in the authorian states.
And what about you. Are you shocked by Mo cartoons in Charlie Hebdo ?
In reply to Removed Userchacha:
Some I can see why people were shocked.. me? Not really.. But I can see how people thought they were offensive.
I cant be sure.. I just think they want war with the west, I tolerant, respectful west makes that harder if more and more muslim youth dont get alienated, they need that for their foot soldiers.
Have you read abouT ISIS struggling to recruit out in the middle east now?
You and Bruce go on about Freedom of Speech but you yourself threatened me with 'libels' because you didnt like what I said.. yet when I said what you wouldn't specify.
It just comes across as incredibly hypocritical, which is Bruce to a T..
Even if there were no cartoons you'd still have the terror attacks.. hence the attack on the Jewish delhi.
Some I can see why people were shocked.. me? Not really.. But I can see how people thought they were offensive.
I cant be sure.. I just think they want war with the west, I tolerant, respectful west makes that harder if more and more muslim youth dont get alienated, they need that for their foot soldiers.
Have you read abouT ISIS struggling to recruit out in the middle east now?
You and Bruce go on about Freedom of Speech but you yourself threatened me with 'libels' because you didnt like what I said.. yet when I said what you wouldn't specify.
It just comes across as incredibly hypocritical, which is Bruce to a T..
Even if there were no cartoons you'd still have the terror attacks.. hence the attack on the Jewish delhi.
Post edited at 17:48
1
In reply to IainRUK:
Neither Bruce nor me threats you. You said some things which are not true. You know how this attack has been painful for French people. That's why it's difficult for me (for Bruce as well I suppose) to read some bullshits. You live far from France. You read the papers, we live here, that's different. There are things that we know and that you don't.
Freedom of speech can be used in order to manipulate people.
Neither Bruce nor me threats you. You said some things which are not true. You know how this attack has been painful for French people. That's why it's difficult for me (for Bruce as well I suppose) to read some bullshits. You live far from France. You read the papers, we live here, that's different. There are things that we know and that you don't.
Freedom of speech can be used in order to manipulate people.
In reply to Removed Userchacha:
And it was difficult after Boston Marathon when Bruce crowed on about the US deserving it....
And it not deserving of a big reaction....
Now everyone has to tow Bruce's line.. the man is a hypocritical shite.
I said something about his missus that was reported in almost every main stream paper.. from the US to the UK.. independent to NYT to the mail... and the rest was an opinion that the editor did take the threat seriously.. noone knows.. well apart from Bruce.
And it was difficult after Boston Marathon when Bruce crowed on about the US deserving it....
And it not deserving of a big reaction....
Now everyone has to tow Bruce's line.. the man is a hypocritical shite.
I said something about his missus that was reported in almost every main stream paper.. from the US to the UK.. independent to NYT to the mail... and the rest was an opinion that the editor did take the threat seriously.. noone knows.. well apart from Bruce.
Post edited at 18:14
In reply to IainRUK:
I didn't read what Bruce wrote about Boston Marathon.
But what he wrote about Charlie Hebdo's attack is true.
I didn't read what Bruce wrote about Boston Marathon.
But what he wrote about Charlie Hebdo's attack is true.
In reply to Removed Userchacha:
I've given up on him, it's hard to even understand many of the posts, like the last one, incomprehensible... as for my "crowing" about the marathon bombing, difficult to know how to reply so I won't. As for my "missus", I think she's best left out of it. One point to know is that Ian is a keen long distance runner so that may explain his constant references to the the marathon.
What is good to see is that at least for the moment both French and British governments are holding firm and not giving in to the killers even though neither of them may be strong supporters of Charlie Hebdo as a newspaper, at least they appear to retain a few principles.
I've given up on him, it's hard to even understand many of the posts, like the last one, incomprehensible... as for my "crowing" about the marathon bombing, difficult to know how to reply so I won't. As for my "missus", I think she's best left out of it. One point to know is that Ian is a keen long distance runner so that may explain his constant references to the the marathon.
What is good to see is that at least for the moment both French and British governments are holding firm and not giving in to the killers even though neither of them may be strong supporters of Charlie Hebdo as a newspaper, at least they appear to retain a few principles.
Post edited at 18:39
In reply to IainRUK:
This is basically incomprehensible, you said something about Bruce's wife that was world news? I know you're in the colonies now but could you try and put it in a form that is intelligible?
> And it was difficult after Boston Marathon when Bruce crowed on about the US deserving it....
> And it not deserving of a big reaction....
> Now everyone has to tow Bruce's line.. the man is a hypocritical shite.
> I said something about his missus that was reported in almost every main stream paper.. from the US to the UK.. independent to NYT to the mail... and the rest was an opinion that the editor did take the threat seriously.. noone knows.. well apart from Bruce.
This is basically incomprehensible, you said something about Bruce's wife that was world news? I know you're in the colonies now but could you try and put it in a form that is intelligible?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
What that personally I knew 10's fo people within yards of the bombs...
yet you thought it right to have no empathy and immediately blame the US and say they deserved it.. and the reaction was unfathomable by you..
That did not lack empathy or humanity...
However 2 years later and me saying that the France shooting was terrible... but I think it could have been anything, and there have been past attacks on free speech out of the France.. but the large reaction is understandable....
I didnt say France deserved it, like Bruce said the Americans did. I didnt call the french 'frogs' like Bruce called the americans 'yanks'... yet the French have also been bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan.....
He is incredibly hypocritical.
He showed no empathy or humanity after the Boston bombings.. yet now wants everyone to not comment on this unless they tow his party line..
What that personally I knew 10's fo people within yards of the bombs...
yet you thought it right to have no empathy and immediately blame the US and say they deserved it.. and the reaction was unfathomable by you..
That did not lack empathy or humanity...
However 2 years later and me saying that the France shooting was terrible... but I think it could have been anything, and there have been past attacks on free speech out of the France.. but the large reaction is understandable....
I didnt say France deserved it, like Bruce said the Americans did. I didnt call the french 'frogs' like Bruce called the americans 'yanks'... yet the French have also been bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan.....
He is incredibly hypocritical.
He showed no empathy or humanity after the Boston bombings.. yet now wants everyone to not comment on this unless they tow his party line..
Post edited at 20:51
In reply to Removed Userchacha:
Bruce did threaten me..
He said my comments were close to landing me in Jail.. he tried to scare me, to silence me because he didn't like what I said. His so called free speech is great as long as it is him talking..
The man is a fool.
If this is so much about free speech, why the Delhi? Why the Belgium attack?
It was also due to French foreign and domestic policy and there will undoubtably be more attacks, again not on the press... that was just a convenient excuse.
Bruce did threaten me..
He said my comments were close to landing me in Jail.. he tried to scare me, to silence me because he didn't like what I said. His so called free speech is great as long as it is him talking..
The man is a fool.
If this is so much about free speech, why the Delhi? Why the Belgium attack?
It was also due to French foreign and domestic policy and there will undoubtably be more attacks, again not on the press... that was just a convenient excuse.
Post edited at 20:48
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Go on then.
So why is you commenting that the US deserved the bombing so soon after the bombing not lacking in humanity or empathy?
Yet me commenting that France didnt, despite similar foreign policy, but the reaction I thought was misplaced.. in that an attack was going to happen regardless, and the press had been targeted previously, was lacking in humanity or empathy?
Let me guess.. because your opinion would have been right in both instances.. so you could comment immediately after the bombing with a full showing of empathy and humanity.....
You posted about Boston and it being no different to bombs in Pakistan/Afghanistan....
"I'm sure it's going to be misunderstood but I'll say it all the same, watching the scenes, and above all listening to the emotive reporting, it occurred to me that in many countries bombs go off very day, drones attack every day, going out and coming home alive is a relief every day and yet we don't see much emotion being expressed on the news about these countries, even when we or the yanks are directly responsible for the mayhem.
Is it too much to hope that the US public might wake up a little to this reality and request their government to change their policies? Will it bring home the horrors that they help to create elsewhere when they themselves suffer in the same way?:
This was 24 hours after the Boston Bombing.. You dont think that lacked empathy or humanity?
Iraq TV stations get attacked. it's shocking because we dont expect such actions on EU/US soils.. but no for you this is different...
Go on then.
So why is you commenting that the US deserved the bombing so soon after the bombing not lacking in humanity or empathy?
Yet me commenting that France didnt, despite similar foreign policy, but the reaction I thought was misplaced.. in that an attack was going to happen regardless, and the press had been targeted previously, was lacking in humanity or empathy?
Let me guess.. because your opinion would have been right in both instances.. so you could comment immediately after the bombing with a full showing of empathy and humanity.....
You posted about Boston and it being no different to bombs in Pakistan/Afghanistan....
"I'm sure it's going to be misunderstood but I'll say it all the same, watching the scenes, and above all listening to the emotive reporting, it occurred to me that in many countries bombs go off very day, drones attack every day, going out and coming home alive is a relief every day and yet we don't see much emotion being expressed on the news about these countries, even when we or the yanks are directly responsible for the mayhem.
Is it too much to hope that the US public might wake up a little to this reality and request their government to change their policies? Will it bring home the horrors that they help to create elsewhere when they themselves suffer in the same way?:
This was 24 hours after the Boston Bombing.. You dont think that lacked empathy or humanity?
Iraq TV stations get attacked. it's shocking because we dont expect such actions on EU/US soils.. but no for you this is different...
Post edited at 21:21
In reply to IainRUK:
Thats the problem. We expect better round here.
> Apologies it was meant for some of average intelligence...
Thats the problem. We expect better round here.
In reply to IainRUK:
What about them? You seem to be expecting a coordinated, coherent policy among all extremists. Considering a fair few want to kill the other extremists I think this is a bit optimistic.
Bollocks. How can you sprout this shit?
They got attacked because the religious nutters couldnt cope with what they wrote and couldnt even manage to ignore it.
> If this is so much about free speech, why the Delhi? Why the Belgium attack?
What about them? You seem to be expecting a coordinated, coherent policy among all extremists. Considering a fair few want to kill the other extremists I think this is a bit optimistic.
> It was also due to French foreign and domestic policy and there will undoubtably be more attacks, again not on the press... that was just a convenient excuse.
Bollocks. How can you sprout this shit?
They got attacked because the religious nutters couldnt cope with what they wrote and couldnt even manage to ignore it.
In reply to IainRUK:
Im..cut too..the qwik...seams abit unfair... To look down on the half.. Of us of less than average intelligence. But it was this bit I'm too dim to understand "I said something about his missus that was reported in almost every main stream paper.. from the US to the UK.. independent to NYT to the mail... and the rest was an opinion that the editor did take the threat seriously.. noone knows.. well apart from Bruce."
> Apologies it was meant for some of average intelligence...
Im..cut too..the qwik...seams abit unfair... To look down on the half.. Of us of less than average intelligence. But it was this bit I'm too dim to understand "I said something about his missus that was reported in almost every main stream paper.. from the US to the UK.. independent to NYT to the mail... and the rest was an opinion that the editor did take the threat seriously.. noone knows.. well apart from Bruce."
In reply to andyathome:
Typical! If this was in a pub, they'd be a fight between some posters!!
Like I said, free speech comes with responsibility............lol
Typical! If this was in a pub, they'd be a fight between some posters!!
Like I said, free speech comes with responsibility............lol
1
In reply to IainRUK:
What Bruce actually said was;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=546303&v=1#x7306864
> And it was difficult after Boston Marathon when Bruce crowed on about the US deserving it....
> And it not deserving of a big reaction....
What Bruce actually said was;
> I'm sure it's going to be misunderstood but I'll say it all the same, watching the scenes, and above all listening to the emotive reporting, it occurred to me that in many countries bombs go off very day, drones attack every day, going out and coming home alive is a relief every day and yet we don't see much emotion being expressed on the news about these countries, even when we or the yanks are directly responsible for the mayhem.
> Is it too much to hope that the US public might wake up a little to this reality and request their government to change their policies? Will it bring home the horrors that they help to create elsewhere when they themselves suffer in the same way?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=546303&v=1#x7306864
In reply to stroppygob:
I think I'd stick by that. I'd also maintain that the recent events in France are somewhat different too.
I think I'd stick by that. I'd also maintain that the recent events in France are somewhat different too.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It's a far cry from Iain's "claim" of what you said, and is actually very similar to what he said above;
It's a far cry from Iain's "claim" of what you said, and is actually very similar to what he said above;
> And yeah what is newsworthy isn't a direct relationship with the numbers killed.. 17 in France is far more news worthy than 1000's of deaths in Nigeria.. maybe it shouldn't be but we can rationalise mass deaths out there as things that can never happen to us.. terrorist attacks out West can't be.
In reply to andyathome:
I see there is a question of whether a person using their right of free speech should first consider whether they are deliberately offending someone who they know will react in a very defensive manner and go out to kill because they have been offended. In those circumstances I think the person who is going to deliberately be provocative by offending and knowing the consequences should be responsible enough not to incite another to be violent.
I see there is a question of whether a person using their right of free speech should first consider whether they are deliberately offending someone who they know will react in a very defensive manner and go out to kill because they have been offended. In those circumstances I think the person who is going to deliberately be provocative by offending and knowing the consequences should be responsible enough not to incite another to be violent.
In reply to off-duty:
True things can be offensive. But if you get offended by the truth it isn't the business of the law to protect you from it because there is a greater benefit to society in making sure facts are available so everyone can form opinions based on them. Things like a religious leader having at least 11 wives including a child bride, a slave bride and a cousin should be fair game for comment if they are historical fact just like Henry VIII's penchant for beheading wives.
> It was written in response to a suggestion/implication that things were only offensive if they were false.
True things can be offensive. But if you get offended by the truth it isn't the business of the law to protect you from it because there is a greater benefit to society in making sure facts are available so everyone can form opinions based on them. Things like a religious leader having at least 11 wives including a child bride, a slave bride and a cousin should be fair game for comment if they are historical fact just like Henry VIII's penchant for beheading wives.
In reply to dissonance:
So why the delhi?
Why Belgium?
So you think had there been no cartoons there would be no attacks in Paris?
You really do live in cloud cuckoo land..
So why the delhi?
Why Belgium?
So you think had there been no cartoons there would be no attacks in Paris?
You really do live in cloud cuckoo land..
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Why?
Because it's your france.. with your French centric view...
Which may be the French view.. I never said it wasn't..
But the US reaction was the American reaction, because it happened there..
And yes Stroppy, I dont tink Bruce and I are a million miles apart.. he just thinks we are...
And Timing wise Bruce thinks I show a lack of empathy to comment on policy so close to the attacks, a week later, when he didn't within 24 hours of the US bombs..... but those comments did show empathy and humanity....
> I think I'd stick by that. I'd also maintain that the recent events in France are somewhat different too.
Why?
Because it's your france.. with your French centric view...
Which may be the French view.. I never said it wasn't..
But the US reaction was the American reaction, because it happened there..
And yes Stroppy, I dont tink Bruce and I are a million miles apart.. he just thinks we are...
And Timing wise Bruce thinks I show a lack of empathy to comment on policy so close to the attacks, a week later, when he didn't within 24 hours of the US bombs..... but those comments did show empathy and humanity....
Post edited at 23:19
In reply to joan cooper:
So, if we don't like, or are offended by, something, (say gay rights for example,) then as long as say we are prepared to go out and kill anyone promoting gay rights, then anyone thinking of expressing support for gay rights should bite their tongue and say nothing?
> I see there is a question of whether a person using their right of free speech should first consider whether they are deliberately offending someone who they know will react in a very defensive manner and go out to kill because they have been offended. In those circumstances I think the person who is going to deliberately be provocative by offending and knowing the consequences should be responsible enough not to incite another to be violent.
So, if we don't like, or are offended by, something, (say gay rights for example,) then as long as say we are prepared to go out and kill anyone promoting gay rights, then anyone thinking of expressing support for gay rights should bite their tongue and say nothing?
In reply to IainRUK:
Do you retract your accusation that Bruce; "crow'd on about the US deserving it*"?
(*the Boston bombing.)
Do you retract your accusation that Bruce; "crow'd on about the US deserving it*"?
(*the Boston bombing.)
In reply to off-duty:
What you've described is abuse and probably threatening language by people who would otherwise be kicking seven shades out of each other. Freedom to express your views, without encouraging violence against others, should be free and unfettered.
> I would suggest that you might have a different view if you had stood between the EDL and the UAF, or even between rival football fans.
What you've described is abuse and probably threatening language by people who would otherwise be kicking seven shades out of each other. Freedom to express your views, without encouraging violence against others, should be free and unfettered.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Not sure where I've said that.
I hope whilst you've been arguing this case you've made sure to make all religious observances, to all religions, lest someone get offended.
> So you just want to behave anyway YOU choose to, even if its against the law? A bit like the murders in question?
Not sure where I've said that.
I hope whilst you've been arguing this case you've made sure to make all religious observances, to all religions, lest someone get offended.
In reply to stroppygob:
<sarcasm> Of course. People saying things that others don't like is like a woman wearing a short skirt; they've only got themselves to blame. <sarcasm/>
> So, if we don't like, or are offended by, something, (say gay rights for example,) then as long as say we are prepared to go out and kill anyone promoting gay rights, then anyone thinking of expressing support for gay rights should bite their tongue and say nothing?
<sarcasm> Of course. People saying things that others don't like is like a woman wearing a short skirt; they've only got themselves to blame. <sarcasm/>
In reply to stroppygob: He certainly felt the US foreign policy had been influential in bringing the bombs...
"None of which appears to be connected with these bombs though as it seems they are the work of home grown murderers... Whether the banalization of bombings of the last decades, and of extra-judicial murder has encouraged such criminals to kill in such an indiscriminate way is a question worth posing though. The world has become a dangerous place for all of us, if some much more than others as I tried to express just above, maybe it's time to tackle the root causes instead of merely lamenting this tragedy, like those before and those to come?"
Yet we can't question French foreign policy in its role in creating their problems?
"None of which appears to be connected with these bombs though as it seems they are the work of home grown murderers... Whether the banalization of bombings of the last decades, and of extra-judicial murder has encouraged such criminals to kill in such an indiscriminate way is a question worth posing though. The world has become a dangerous place for all of us, if some much more than others as I tried to express just above, maybe it's time to tackle the root causes instead of merely lamenting this tragedy, like those before and those to come?"
Yet we can't question French foreign policy in its role in creating their problems?
In reply to IainRUK:
Which is not what you accused him off, you accused him of, let's go to the tape again;
Would you care to retract your original accusations?
> He certainly felt the US foreign policy had been influential in bringing the bombs...
> He showed no empathy or humanity after the Boston bombings.. yet now wants everyone to not comment on this unless they tow his party line..;
Which is not what you accused him off, you accused him of, let's go to the tape again;
> You did after Boston.. Showing no empathy said it was The US reaping that it sowed and no different to what happens daily in Iraq...
> Yet Bruce seems to think in the case of Boston the American's shouldn't have been so up in arms.. yet the French should be... in the hypocritical way only he can..
> And it was difficult after Boston Marathon when Bruce crowed on about the US deserving it....
Would you care to retract your original accusations?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Out of curiosity since you keep banging about it. What's your beef with that? It's not that is a secret or taboo, it's written in the fricking Quran after all and learnt by all muslims or anyone with a wish to know about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
Out of curiosity since you keep banging about it. What's your beef with that? It's not that is a secret or taboo, it's written in the fricking Quran after all and learnt by all muslims or anyone with a wish to know about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
Post edited at 23:53
In reply to stroppygob: I think he did.. lets agree to differ.
Go on then, inquire how I said the murders in Paris were justified.....
Absolute coward you are.. an absolute huge lack of integrity.
Go on then, inquire how I said the murders in Paris were justified.....
Absolute coward you are.. an absolute huge lack of integrity.
In reply to IainRUK:
No, let's not.
What on earth are you gibbering about?
> I think he did.. lets agree to differ.
No, let's not.
> Go on then, inquire how I said the murders in Paris were justified.....
> Absolute coward you are.. an absolute huge lack of integrity.
What on earth are you gibbering about?
In reply to Mr Lopez:
tbf their are things written in the bible which are also illegal..
times change.. these texts were written hundreds, even 1000's of years ago and often reflect that culture so obviously shouldnt be a guide for the future or a moral code.
tbf their are things written in the bible which are also illegal..
times change.. these texts were written hundreds, even 1000's of years ago and often reflect that culture so obviously shouldnt be a guide for the future or a moral code.
In reply to stroppygob:
Bruce said, I said the murders were justified....
"Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law."
Constant threats and lies...
If you are so keen to make everything factual where did I say that?
You won't.... spineless...
He clearly thinks the USA brought the Bombs to themselves by there foreign policy.. so he thinks they were deserved... he's justifying the murder of innocent people far more than I did..
Bruce said, I said the murders were justified....
"Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law."
Constant threats and lies...
If you are so keen to make everything factual where did I say that?
You won't.... spineless...
He clearly thinks the USA brought the Bombs to themselves by there foreign policy.. so he thinks they were deserved... he's justifying the murder of innocent people far more than I did..
Post edited at 00:11
In reply to IainRUK:
Oh, i don't think it's an argument for judging people for their actions 2000 years ago with today's yardsticks. He just seem to be implying that it is somewhat not allowed to talk about Muhammad's wives or something
Oh, i don't think it's an argument for judging people for their actions 2000 years ago with today's yardsticks. He just seem to be implying that it is somewhat not allowed to talk about Muhammad's wives or something
In reply to IainRUK:
I can read that, it says "Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law."
Which is neither a threat nor a lie.
Dear,dear dear, why can't you man up and admit that your accusation against Bruce is unfounded?
You have obviously, as did I, done a forum search of threads on the Boston bombing, and we both know that Bruce did not crow on about the US deserving the Boston Bombing, not in any ways shape of form.
You have been shown up, yet again, as being a dishonest player Iain.
> Bruce said, I said the murders were justified....
> "Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law."
I can read that, it says "Like another poster you are coming pretty close to justifying murder and terrorism on this post, which, as I'm sure you know breaks the law."
Which is neither a threat nor a lie.
> Constant threats and lies...
> If you are so keen to make everything factual where did I say that?
> You won't.... spineless...
Dear,dear dear, why can't you man up and admit that your accusation against Bruce is unfounded?
You have obviously, as did I, done a forum search of threads on the Boston bombing, and we both know that Bruce did not crow on about the US deserving the Boston Bombing, not in any ways shape of form.
You have been shown up, yet again, as being a dishonest player Iain.
In reply to stroppygob:
His threat was about me serving time..
It is a lie! How have I justified their murder? It is a 100% lie.
I would report it but its obviously such bollox I have no issues with the crazy old guy.
Go on I challenge you?
Absolute spineless turd... As dishonest as they come.. reporting others.. you are anonymous.. yet your wife gets insulted and its awful.. noone has any idea who she is so how can it be hurtful in the slightest. Bruce has accused me of taking drugs to assist running.. I'm not anonymous.. I dont give a shit he's just a bat shit crazy old man
He said US foreign policy was to blame for the Boston Bombings...
Spineless..
His threat was about me serving time..
It is a lie! How have I justified their murder? It is a 100% lie.
I would report it but its obviously such bollox I have no issues with the crazy old guy.
Go on I challenge you?
Absolute spineless turd... As dishonest as they come.. reporting others.. you are anonymous.. yet your wife gets insulted and its awful.. noone has any idea who she is so how can it be hurtful in the slightest. Bruce has accused me of taking drugs to assist running.. I'm not anonymous.. I dont give a shit he's just a bat shit crazy old man
He said US foreign policy was to blame for the Boston Bombings...
Spineless..
Post edited at 00:24
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Ahh OK..
TBH my view is changing on the images.. 100's have now died, probably 1000's since the Denmark Cartoons in protests and attacks..
To prove we have free speech do we need to do things which are obviously provocative when so many will die?
I know it is totally unfathomable how it can literally lead to 1000's of deaths but this time alone we are up to 100's already in these attacks and various protests... (250+ after the Danish ones)
I dont think its totally unacceptable to suggest maybe its time to stop, not admit defeat but just stop 100's dying so a few can have a laugh.
The 2005 danish Cartoons were actually branded a human rights breach by the UN and deemed xenophobia and racism in Europe as the root of the problem.
> Oh, i don't think it's an argument for judging people for their actions 2000 years ago with today's yardsticks. He just seem to be implying that it is somewhat not allowed to talk about Muhammad's wives or something
Ahh OK..
TBH my view is changing on the images.. 100's have now died, probably 1000's since the Denmark Cartoons in protests and attacks..
To prove we have free speech do we need to do things which are obviously provocative when so many will die?
I know it is totally unfathomable how it can literally lead to 1000's of deaths but this time alone we are up to 100's already in these attacks and various protests... (250+ after the Danish ones)
I dont think its totally unacceptable to suggest maybe its time to stop, not admit defeat but just stop 100's dying so a few can have a laugh.
The 2005 danish Cartoons were actually branded a human rights breach by the UN and deemed xenophobia and racism in Europe as the root of the problem.
1
In reply to IainRUK:
You haven't, and Bruce hasn't claimed you have.
Go ahead and report it, I'm sure the Mods could do with a good laugh.
Frothing at the mouth a bit there Iain. You use insult and strawman so freely, yet are incapable of honesty. You're not a very nice person are you?
Which is not what you accused him of, let's go to the tape once more, this see your accusation, care to retract it?
To be considered spineless by a proven liar like yourself is a mere folderol.
> His threat was about me serving time..
> It is a lie! How have I justified their murder? It is a 100% lie.
You haven't, and Bruce hasn't claimed you have.
> I would report it but its obviously such bollox I have no issues with the crazy old guy.
Go ahead and report it, I'm sure the Mods could do with a good laugh.
> Absolute spineless turd... As dishonest as they come.. reporting others.. you are anonymous.. yet your wife gets insulted and its awful.. noone has any idea who she is so how can it be hurtful in the slightest. Bruce has accused me of taking drugs to assist running.. I'm not anonymous.. I dont give a shit he's just a bat shit crazy old man
Frothing at the mouth a bit there Iain. You use insult and strawman so freely, yet are incapable of honesty. You're not a very nice person are you?
> He said US foreign policy was to blame for the Boston Bombings...
Which is not what you accused him of, let's go to the tape once more, this see your accusation, care to retract it?
> And it was difficult after Boston Marathon when Bruce crowed on about the US deserving it....;
> Spineless..
To be considered spineless by a proven liar like yourself is a mere folderol.
In reply to stroppygob:
Spineless..
You still upset your anonymous wife got insulted? That made my night..
As you are clearly so inept to do research and would rather jump in ignorantly..
"Bruce Hooker - on 12:34 Fri
In reply to IainRUK:
That's a lie, they lampooned the extremists... You are coming pretty close to justifying the murders here. Someone in France just got 15 months prison for little more so I advise you to keep your lies to yourself, and certainly don't spout them in France, you might get a well merited surprise."
How did I come close to justifying the terror acts?
Dumb and Spineless..
> You haven't, and Bruce hasn't claimed you have.
Yes he did.. I was the other poster you muppet.. he even said it in the other thread..Spineless..
You still upset your anonymous wife got insulted? That made my night..
As you are clearly so inept to do research and would rather jump in ignorantly..
"Bruce Hooker - on 12:34 Fri
In reply to IainRUK:
> They quite clearly over a number of editions also laughed at Islam in General..
That's a lie, they lampooned the extremists... You are coming pretty close to justifying the murders here. Someone in France just got 15 months prison for little more so I advise you to keep your lies to yourself, and certainly don't spout them in France, you might get a well merited surprise."
How did I come close to justifying the terror acts?
Dumb and Spineless..
Post edited at 00:42
In reply to IainRUK:
There is no threat in that post Iain, your reading comprehension seems very poor
I was not "upset," I din't think it right that my wife was insulted. Obviously you care nothing for your wife as you seem happy for her to be insulted.
What a nasty spiteful little man you are Iain.
> Yes he did.. I was the other poster you muppet.. he even said it in the other thread..
There is no threat in that post Iain, your reading comprehension seems very poor
> Spineless..
> You still upset your anonymous wife got insulted? That made my night..
I was not "upset," I din't think it right that my wife was insulted. Obviously you care nothing for your wife as you seem happy for her to be insulted.
What a nasty spiteful little man you are Iain.
In reply to stroppygob:
No, because I'm not anonymous.. so my wife isn't.
You are 100% an anonymous coward.. so your wife essentially does not exist.
Haha coming from the guy who stands at the side trying to get punches in... I'm struggling to watch the football I'm laughing at you so much soft lad.
Did he say I came close to jusifying terror? Yes.. Did he say be careful or I could serve time? Yes...
No, because I'm not anonymous.. so my wife isn't.
You are 100% an anonymous coward.. so your wife essentially does not exist.
Haha coming from the guy who stands at the side trying to get punches in... I'm struggling to watch the football I'm laughing at you so much soft lad.
Did he say I came close to jusifying terror? Yes.. Did he say be careful or I could serve time? Yes...
Post edited at 00:46
> "Bruce Hooker - on 12:34 Fri
> In reply to IainRUK:
> That's a lie, they lampooned the extremists... You are coming pretty close to justifying the murders here. Someone in France just got 15 months prison for little more so I advise you to keep your lies to yourself, and certainly don't spout them in France, you might get a well merited surprise."
> How did I come close to justifying the terror acts?
> Dumb and Spineless..
You are frothing again Iain.
Bruce gave you some circumspect advice, and all you can do is play victim.
Poor little Iain, such a sad little man.
In reply to stroppygob:
So you think I justified murder.. haha brilliant!
More lies from you.. Spineless...
Brilliant soft lad.. get back to that imaginary wife of yours...
So you think I justified murder.. haha brilliant!
More lies from you.. Spineless...
Brilliant soft lad.. get back to that imaginary wife of yours...
Post edited at 00:47
In reply to Mr Lopez:
You can find it if you seek it out but if you read a school RE book in the UK or watch a TV documentary about Islam or watch a debate about Islam or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons nobody mentions it, never mind uses the usual terms for this kind of act. On the other hand nobody would think twice about saying Henry VIII was a murderer if someone tried to present him as a messenger of god and argued it was offensive to draw cartoons of him. So what is the difference?
> Out of curiosity since you keep banging about it. What's your beef with that? It's not that is a secret or taboo, it's written in the fricking Quran after all and learnt by all muslims or anyone with a wish to know about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives
You can find it if you seek it out but if you read a school RE book in the UK or watch a TV documentary about Islam or watch a debate about Islam or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons nobody mentions it, never mind uses the usual terms for this kind of act. On the other hand nobody would think twice about saying Henry VIII was a murderer if someone tried to present him as a messenger of god and argued it was offensive to draw cartoons of him. So what is the difference?
In reply to IainRUK:
Isn't she? You still care nothing for her, as you don't mind if people insult her.
Your twisted logic is appalling.
What on earth are you babbling about?
> No, because I'm not anonymous.. so my wife isn't.
Isn't she? You still care nothing for her, as you don't mind if people insult her.
> You are 100% an anonymous coward.. so your wife essentially does not exist.
Your twisted logic is appalling.
> Haha coming from the guy who stands at the side trying to get punches in... I'm struggling to watch the football I'm laughing at you so much soft lad.
What on earth are you babbling about?
In reply to IainRUK:
What are you dribbling about now? Where did I say that. Note i want an actual quote since you have been shown to be less than accurate in your interpretation of what people say.
Coming from you that really is f*cking rich?
> So you think had there been no cartoons there would be no attacks in Paris?
What are you dribbling about now? Where did I say that. Note i want an actual quote since you have been shown to be less than accurate in your interpretation of what people say.
> You really do live in cloud cuckoo land..
Coming from you that really is f*cking rich?
Post edited at 00:48
In reply to IainRUK:
No I didn't say that did I? Care to quote me saying you justified murder.
Better than being like you Iain,
And you can get back to yours,.
> So you think I justified murder.. haha brilliant!
No I didn't say that did I? Care to quote me saying you justified murder.
> More lies from you.. Spineless...
Better than being like you Iain,
> Brilliant soft lad.. get back to that imaginary wife of yours...
And you can get back to yours,.
In reply to stroppygob:
You are frothing again Iain.
Bruce gave you some circumspect advice, and all you can do is play victim.
So Bruce's advice was that I was close to justifying murder.. and you agreed.
> That's a lie, they lampooned the extremists... You are coming pretty close to justifying the murders here. Someone in France just got 15 months prison for little more so I advise you to keep your lies to yourself, and certainly don't spout them in France, you might get a well merited surprise."
> How did I come close to justifying the terror acts?
> Dumb and Spineless..
You are frothing again Iain.
Bruce gave you some circumspect advice, and all you can do is play victim.
So Bruce's advice was that I was close to justifying murder.. and you agreed.
In reply to dissonance:
Brilliant. You and Strops are a right pair..
"Bollocks. How can you sprout this shit?
They got attacked because the religious nutters couldnt cope with what they wrote and couldnt even manage to ignore it."
Had they not done the cartoons someone else would have been attacked..
Hence the delhi being randomly chosen because they had others in the area ready to go..
> What are you dribbling about now? Where did I say that. Note i want an actual quote since you have been shown to be less than accurate in your interpretation of what people say.
> Coming from you that really is f*cking rich?
Brilliant. You and Strops are a right pair..
"Bollocks. How can you sprout this shit?
They got attacked because the religious nutters couldnt cope with what they wrote and couldnt even manage to ignore it."
Had they not done the cartoons someone else would have been attacked..
Hence the delhi being randomly chosen because they had others in the area ready to go..
In reply to stroppygob:
Not really no. If I was totally anonymous she would be so you'd be insulting noone.. its why you stay anonymous.. because you are a coward. Spineless.
I'm frothing? Yet you are the one who reports people who are nasty to you.. dee dums.. pathetic.
> Isn't she? You still care nothing for her, as you don't mind if people insult her.
> Your twisted logic is appalling.
> What on earth are you babbling about?
Not really no. If I was totally anonymous she would be so you'd be insulting noone.. its why you stay anonymous.. because you are a coward. Spineless.
I'm frothing? Yet you are the one who reports people who are nasty to you.. dee dums.. pathetic.
Post edited at 00:56
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Dude... The wives of Muhammad are "the mothers of all muslims", and they all know them, study them, and revere them. Hell, a couple of them are responsible for writing the Quran, most Hadiths, and the expansion of Islam. A bit like Jesus' apostles.
I don't know. I still don't know what you are trying to say. But as a guess my answer is "42"
Dude... The wives of Muhammad are "the mothers of all muslims", and they all know them, study them, and revere them. Hell, a couple of them are responsible for writing the Quran, most Hadiths, and the expansion of Islam. A bit like Jesus' apostles.
> what is the difference?
I don't know. I still don't know what you are trying to say. But as a guess my answer is "42"
In reply to IainRUK and stroppygob:
You've managed between you to change my view on freedom of speech. I think it should be curtailed to the point where you both have to shut up. Any chance you could switch to PM'd abuse and delete the last twenty or so posts?
Ta.
You've managed between you to change my view on freedom of speech. I think it should be curtailed to the point where you both have to shut up. Any chance you could switch to PM'd abuse and delete the last twenty or so posts?
Ta.
In reply to IainRUK:
You really are quite mad aren't you?
No, I reported someone for making an unpleasant slur against my wife. Why do you find dealing with the truth so difficult?
> Not really no. If I was totally anonymous she would be so you'd be insulting noone.. its why you stay anonymous.. because you are a coward. Spineless.
You really are quite mad aren't you?
> I'm frothing? Yet you are the one who reports people who are nasty to you.. dee dums.. pathetic.
No, I reported someone for making an unpleasant slur against my wife. Why do you find dealing with the truth so difficult?
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
It's bad enough having to deal with Iain's imagined reality in a public forums, to do so in private would be too much like being at work for me.
> Any chance you could switch to PM'd abuse and delete the last twenty or so posts?
> Ta.
It's bad enough having to deal with Iain's imagined reality in a public forums, to do so in private would be too much like being at work for me.
In reply to stroppygob:
Who is anonymous...
If someone you dont know calls you a tw*t, Do you care?
No because they dont know you. So your wife is 100% anonymous.. so why should it matter in the slightest?
She could be fat? Thin? Stunning? Ugly as f*ck? But I could call her anything and it would be totally without any basis so totally redundant.. yet you frothed so much you emailed and got the thread deleted.. yet I'm the one wh's angry?
Lets Please monkey guy and just ignore each other... Night Strops..
Who is anonymous...
If someone you dont know calls you a tw*t, Do you care?
No because they dont know you. So your wife is 100% anonymous.. so why should it matter in the slightest?
She could be fat? Thin? Stunning? Ugly as f*ck? But I could call her anything and it would be totally without any basis so totally redundant.. yet you frothed so much you emailed and got the thread deleted.. yet I'm the one wh's angry?
Lets Please monkey guy and just ignore each other... Night Strops..
In reply to IainRUK:
So. Why did they attack the magazine? Nothing to do with French foreign or internal policy.
Randomly chosen? There was a very specific reason that was targeted. Again nothing to do with French foreign and domestic policy.
> Had they not done the cartoons someone else would have been attacked..
So. Why did they attack the magazine? Nothing to do with French foreign or internal policy.
> Hence the delhi being randomly chosen because they had others in the area ready to go..
Randomly chosen? There was a very specific reason that was targeted. Again nothing to do with French foreign and domestic policy.
In reply to dissonance:
So you think France and Belgium have a large amount of disenfranchised youths supporting ISIS purely because of Jews in France and Cartoons?
"Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the North African offshoot of the Islamist militant group, threatened France on Monday with more attacks because of its stance over Islam and Muslim countries. "
http://www.ibtimes.com/al-qaeda-islamic-maghreb-threatens-france-worst-more...
Al Qaeda In The Islamic Maghreb Threatens France With 'Worst And More'
By Suman Varandani @suman09 s.varandani@ibtimes.com on January 13 2015 5:32 AM
Yeah.. nothing to do with French foreign policy..
""France pays the cost of its violence on Muslim countries and the violation of their sanctity," AQIM said in a statement, published on jihadist websites, according to CNN. "As long as its soldiers occupy countries such as Mali and Central Africa and bombard our people in Syria and Iraq, and as long as its lame media continues to undermine our Prophet (Muhammad), France will expose itself to the worst and more."
You are right.. nothing at all to do with French foreign policy... not one iota... nada...
> So. Why did they attack the magazine? Nothing to do with French foreign or internal policy.
> Randomly chosen? There was a very specific reason that was targeted. Again nothing to do with French foreign and domestic policy.
So you think France and Belgium have a large amount of disenfranchised youths supporting ISIS purely because of Jews in France and Cartoons?
"Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the North African offshoot of the Islamist militant group, threatened France on Monday with more attacks because of its stance over Islam and Muslim countries. "
http://www.ibtimes.com/al-qaeda-islamic-maghreb-threatens-france-worst-more...
Al Qaeda In The Islamic Maghreb Threatens France With 'Worst And More'
By Suman Varandani @suman09 s.varandani@ibtimes.com on January 13 2015 5:32 AM
Yeah.. nothing to do with French foreign policy..
""France pays the cost of its violence on Muslim countries and the violation of their sanctity," AQIM said in a statement, published on jihadist websites, according to CNN. "As long as its soldiers occupy countries such as Mali and Central Africa and bombard our people in Syria and Iraq, and as long as its lame media continues to undermine our Prophet (Muhammad), France will expose itself to the worst and more."
You are right.. nothing at all to do with French foreign policy... not one iota... nada...
Post edited at 01:13
In reply to dissonance:
Go on why was that specific delhi targeted?
I think CE was convenient, an easy target, high profile.. But I dont think for one minute that had there been no CE there would have been no attacks.
Clearly past threats against France too..
http://www.wpxi.com/videos/news/isis-threatens-to-kill-french-man-if-airstr...
http://wwlp.com/2014/09/22/isis-threatens-to-attack-the-u-s-france-australi...
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/10/20/french-muslim-jihadist-threatens-f...
Go on why was that specific delhi targeted?
I think CE was convenient, an easy target, high profile.. But I dont think for one minute that had there been no CE there would have been no attacks.
Clearly past threats against France too..
http://www.wpxi.com/videos/news/isis-threatens-to-kill-french-man-if-airstr...
http://wwlp.com/2014/09/22/isis-threatens-to-attack-the-u-s-france-australi...
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/10/20/french-muslim-jihadist-threatens-f...
Post edited at 01:27
In reply to dissonance:
You are normally quite reactive but even for you this is incredible.
Think about what very specific means?
Just one off events? Which is also by definition random. So something which looks very specific can equally be very random. They can just highlight afterwards why and make it seem they can attack anyone anywhere.. I do think this was fairly specific in that they knew so much about it.. but had that not been possible they'd have targeted another press outlet, or another target.. but remove CE the anger regarding French foreign policy was still there.. the domestic policy just provides the recruiting grounds for disenfranchised youths.
They could have hit any press outlet in France and claimed it an attack on the Media.. they could have hit any jewish business and claimed it a protest about Palestine..
So yes, almost certainly it was connected with French foreign policy.
Regarding French domestic policy, Bruce supported this days ago before I also said I supported that view.. then he switched. Watch the democracy now video linked on the other thread about french muslims not feeling integrated into France. They have a passport but don't feel French. Hence the riots, hence the ISIS supporters....
But yeah it's just about the cartoons...
French foreign policy was part of the threats and the promises of further attacks after the attack. Notably they mentioned the press and Muhammed after they had singled out French foreign policy..
It has been taken as a very specific attack on the French press, specifically CE, when remove them and it almost certainly would have happened elsewhere.. hence the jewish delhi attack and the terrorists captured in Belgium very soon after.
There is just no way you can claim it was a specific attack on CE alone with no connection to French foreign policy against ISIS.
What did the Spainish do? Londoners? Boston people? They attack pretty much whereever they can, for maximum effect. We'll see, if there are no more attacks on anything but CE then you are right.. but if attacks continue, as they did in belgium (another country bombing ISIS), then foreign policy must be considered a driving factor...
Instead the attack on the press has been the story.. when in reality it was shocking because our press is free.. so attacks on Iraqi press aren't a story but it was no unique first step, but the first successful one western soil.. similarly bombs on Iraqi streets aren't as big a story as bombs on the streets of Boston and London, regardless of the numbers killed. That may not be fair but that is the reality. Hence the limited news reports on the 1000+ killed in Nigeria this week.. Yet Bruce thinks it right that France gets the reaction and not Boston.. when both were understandably shocking..
Bruce and the French may find this more shocking than Boston.. now doubt those in Boston found it more shocking, but also maybe those in London found London more shocking.. and maybe those around the WTC found that more shocking..
You are normally quite reactive but even for you this is incredible.
Think about what very specific means?
Just one off events? Which is also by definition random. So something which looks very specific can equally be very random. They can just highlight afterwards why and make it seem they can attack anyone anywhere.. I do think this was fairly specific in that they knew so much about it.. but had that not been possible they'd have targeted another press outlet, or another target.. but remove CE the anger regarding French foreign policy was still there.. the domestic policy just provides the recruiting grounds for disenfranchised youths.
They could have hit any press outlet in France and claimed it an attack on the Media.. they could have hit any jewish business and claimed it a protest about Palestine..
So yes, almost certainly it was connected with French foreign policy.
Regarding French domestic policy, Bruce supported this days ago before I also said I supported that view.. then he switched. Watch the democracy now video linked on the other thread about french muslims not feeling integrated into France. They have a passport but don't feel French. Hence the riots, hence the ISIS supporters....
But yeah it's just about the cartoons...
French foreign policy was part of the threats and the promises of further attacks after the attack. Notably they mentioned the press and Muhammed after they had singled out French foreign policy..
It has been taken as a very specific attack on the French press, specifically CE, when remove them and it almost certainly would have happened elsewhere.. hence the jewish delhi attack and the terrorists captured in Belgium very soon after.
There is just no way you can claim it was a specific attack on CE alone with no connection to French foreign policy against ISIS.
What did the Spainish do? Londoners? Boston people? They attack pretty much whereever they can, for maximum effect. We'll see, if there are no more attacks on anything but CE then you are right.. but if attacks continue, as they did in belgium (another country bombing ISIS), then foreign policy must be considered a driving factor...
Instead the attack on the press has been the story.. when in reality it was shocking because our press is free.. so attacks on Iraqi press aren't a story but it was no unique first step, but the first successful one western soil.. similarly bombs on Iraqi streets aren't as big a story as bombs on the streets of Boston and London, regardless of the numbers killed. That may not be fair but that is the reality. Hence the limited news reports on the 1000+ killed in Nigeria this week.. Yet Bruce thinks it right that France gets the reaction and not Boston.. when both were understandably shocking..
Bruce and the French may find this more shocking than Boston.. now doubt those in Boston found it more shocking, but also maybe those in London found London more shocking.. and maybe those around the WTC found that more shocking..
Post edited at 03:54
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...