Awful protest

[Mabs]

you dont even have the first clue of which territory you're begining to walk into with that comment...

actually that is a factual statement

the american military believed that having taken all the islands from the japanese "death before surrender" having to actually take mainland japan would cost hundreds of thousands of american dead. so plan B was easier.

the fact that since then the numbers have been criticised doesnt change it at all, it was the best info available at the time.

"innocent" might have been a bit subjective, but they were on our side, we won, so we get to write the history.. its how it goes

 

[Chronictank]

Have you heard yourself man, read the thread properly post for post (which you've clearly not done) as for insults they were entirely justified when nob ends with a clear god complex like yourself that spout utter cack out of their facial aperture.

I'm pretty sure you've got this little magic place in your head where you act all this crap out... "I'm chronic! bow down to your almighty lord who is never wrong! you will be smited if you attempt to disagree or prove me wrong!"

I used to think you were alright and you came out with constructive stuff, now I realise your just another cock with a god complex thats stuck so far up their own arse they can lick the enamel from the back of their teeth.

What on earth are you droaning on about?
You have given nothing of any substance to "prove me wrong", nor have progressed the discussion. Instead you misdirect and ignore what suites you so you can go on your little tirade. Just read back your last few posts which are testemant to that

In another vein attempt to bring things back on topic as it will no doubt be ignored by yourself just so you can have another pot shot (it's quite pathetic to watch really)

This is about whether they should be allowed to protest in the manner they did, they have every right to do it because they are breaking no laws its as simple as that.
I highlighted the reasoning behind it and brought up a similar situation where there was support for the people trying to provoke anger for the sake of a quick buck/headlines and the complete hypocracy and double standards of calling for them to be stopped.

Wrong target? absolutely
Morally wrong? sure
Should they have been stopped? Ofc not it is their right to do it provided it is done within the confines of the law

 

[Mabs]

You have given nothing of any substance to "prove me wrong", nor have progressed the discussion. Instead you misdirect and ignore what suites you so you can go on your little tirade. Just read back your last few posts which are testemant to that

really? i thought that was your speciality

being wilfully ignorant is quite sad actually.

 

[Chronictank]

really? i thought that was your speciality

being wilfully ignorant is quite sad actually.

Then point out the flaw in my statement

This is about whether they should be allowed to protest in the manner they did, they have every right to do it because they are breaking no laws its as simple as that.
I highlighted the reasoning behind it and brought up a similar situation where there was support for the people trying to provoke anger for the sake of a quick buck/headlines and the complete hypocracy and double standards of calling for them to be stopped.

Wrong target? absolutely
Morally wrong? sure
Should they have been stopped? Ofc not it is their right to do it provided it is done within the confines of the law

 

[BloodOmen]

Please share with the rest of the thread why I posted all of the bombings, the exact reason since you clearly think you know why.

 

[Chronictank]

Please share with the rest of the thread why I posted all of the bombings, the exact reason since you clearly think you know why.

No i dont think i will, instead i will pose the same question as above to you

point out what you disagree with in my statement above, the same thing i put forward at the start of the discussion

 

[BloodOmen]

No i dont think i will, instead i will pose the same question as above to you

point out what you disagree with in my statement above, the same thing i put forward at the start of the discussion

Thought so, you won't because you haven't got a clue why I posted it. You claim to want everyone treated equally yet you always jump into threads like this and defend extremists at every given opportunity.

But hey, they're good people right? and they should be allowed to shout abuse and out of hand slurs at other good people right? and they should also be allowed to support terrorism right?

 

[Mey]

I think it's worth saying Freedom of speech does not imply Freedom from responsibility, they are lucky those lads in the greens have abit of discipline, else they would of found themselves on the end of a few right hooks.

It's disgusting that we allow people to mock our armed forces at a parade for people who have put their life on the line for their country. What next, protests at remeberance sunday?

 

[Mabs]

I think it's worth saying Freedom of speech does not imply Freedom from responsibility, they are lucky those lads in the greens have abit of discipline, else they would of found themselves on the end of a few right hooks.

It's disgusting that we allow people to mock our armed forces at a parade for people who have put their life on the line for their country. What next, protests at remeberance sunday?

cant remember what they are called, but thats what that sad family church in the US did, picketing US forces funerals

chronic probably in favour of that aswell cos its technically "legal"

 

[Zenith]

actually that is a factual statement

the american military believed that having taken all the islands from the japanese "death before surrender" having to actually take mainland japan would cost hundreds of thousands of american dead. so plan B was easier.

the fact that since then the numbers have been criticised doesnt change it at all, it was the best info available at the time.

"innocent" might have been a bit subjective, but they were on our side, we won, so we get to write the history.. its how it goes

Which, in my view, does Nothing to "justify" one of the worst fucking crimes done to day. Dropping nuclear bombs into a two major civilian citys... I cant even begin to describe how fucked up that is, or how that could be let to happend.

 

[nath]

cant remember what they are called, but thats what that sad family church in the US did, picketing US forces funerals

chronic probably in favour of that aswell cos its technically "legal"

Westboro baptist church - and don't do that. "Chronic is probably in favour of that". That's a bullshit argumentative tactic and you know it. It's clear that Chronic doesn't agree with what they're saying and that he merely thinks it shouldn't be illegal. You know this, yet you try to manoeuvre his point so that it seems like he's somehow in agreement with what they're saying.

 

[Mabs]

Westboro baptist church - and don't do that. "Chronic is probably in favour of that". That's a bullshit argumentative tactic and you know it. It's clear that Chronic doesn't agree with what they're saying and that he merely thinks it shouldn't be illegal. You know this, yet you try to manoeuvre his point so that it seems like he's somehow in agreement with what they're saying.

thats the fuckers ta

and actually its perfectly fair. hes saying he doesnt have a problem with extremists expressing their views.
or are you saying he wouldnt mind it cos theyre white? so hes a racist ? oO



/edit
and i meant the DOING OF not the DOING ABOUT

 

[Access Denied]

Which, in my view, does Nothing to "justify" one of the worst fucking crimes done to day. Dropping nuclear bombs into a two major civilian citys... I cant even begin to describe how fucked up that is, or how that could be let to happend.

I noticed you've not said anything about my post. Care to comment?

 

[Olgaline]

here's my take on things

Spoiler

it's a joke! get over it...

 

[Gwadien]

They fail to spell

not heroes but closer to coweards who cannot fight, as their uncanny knack for death by friendly fire illustrates

Not being funny either, but them soldiers are out there, to fight for the country, and they have the cheek to sit behind their safe little houses, and mock the soldiers, this really pisses me off, why don't they go and fight for us instead, oh no, because they support the militants, thats right

 

[Chronictank]

Thought so, you won't because you haven't got a clue why I posted it. You claim to want everyone treated equally yet you always jump into threads like this and defend extremists at every given opportunity.

Wrong, i dont see the point in it because you refuse to answer any of mine so why should i bother wasting my time with you anymore?
The very fact you refuse to answer the point i raised at the start of the thread shows exactly what your agenda for creating this thread was, to go on a rant about extremists and be patted on the back about it. I laid the trap as i already knew what the responce would be and you fell for it hook line and sinker just like i knew Mabs would. Wo and behold there he is posting below you about how i somehow am a racist and support the desceration of peoples funerals

But hey, they're good people right? and they should be allowed to shout abuse and out of hand slurs at other good people right?

Wrong again, i raised this very point in 2005 when the danish cartoons came out and the freedom of speach bridgage (who are now against the concept they were defending that time around) said it should be allowed. Many people here routinely post them knowing fully well the ill-feeling they generate.
I on the other hand simply stated that if one is allowed so should the multitude of sick b*****ds out there be allowed to spread there wares and it is double standards pure and simple to suggest otherwise provided they are within the confines of the law.

and they should also be allowed to support terrorism right?

None of the boards supported terrorism from the pictures on the news, whether you think they do or not is of no relevance to this particular instance we are discussing. If they had boards supporting terrorims they would have been disperesed/arrested just abu hamzah and his cronies.
You can correct me if you can provide evidence to the contrary and i will condede your point, until then you have simply made this up

thats the fuckers ta

and actually its perfectly fair. hes saying he doesnt have a problem with extremists expressing their views.
or are you saying he wouldnt mind it cos theyre white? so hes a racist ? oO



/edit
and i meant the DOING OF not the DOING ABOUT

And again rather than try and justify your side of the argument you post blatant bullsh**.
I have not at any point in this thread supported their views, if you think i have show me a quote.

I have however repeatedly said that if one side is able to spout their rubbish the other should equally be allowed to.
If one side is going to be censored then so should the others, i have clarified this point several times and posed it to you as a outright question in my last reply, every time you ignore the argument completely and go for a personal attack.

If you want my opinion on my personal opinion of the matter, i think they all should have been sensored as none of them are able to responibly express themselves which is exactly what i said in the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoon thread and the subsequent discussions when this came up.

 

[Mabs]

chronic

LEARN

TO

READ

 

[nath]

and actually its perfectly fair. hes saying he doesnt have a problem with extremists expressing their views.

The way you word it is very suggestive. You imply that it's *obvious* that we shouldn't allow extremists to express their views, but that's quite a dangerous attitude. The problem with free speech is that we're not always going to like what's said. Being horrendously offended is no excuse to ban something, there seems to be this modern attitude that we must not cause or receive any form of offence. Fuck that, I say.

Inciting racial hatred/violence should be stopped, but it's a very murky subject. I don't envy the people who have to decide where one crosses the line from shouting uneducated, offensive trash to inciting violence.

Anyway - you seem to be trying to suggest that it's absurd to think that we should stick up for the freedom of speech of extremists, like it somehow makes us agree with their position. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". The protest linked in the OP is total dogwank, and those guys are fuckwits, but as long as they're doing it peacefully - suck up the offence. It's the price of living in a free society.

In my opinion.

 

[Chronictank]

chronic

LEARN

TO

READ

Apologies was in a rush before i head home, yes you are right i didnt read the last reply properly

Lets make it simpler
Do you or do you not support a ban on the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoon and subsequent material that was deemed extremly offensive to whatever target grp

Yes or no

 

[Olgaline]

The problem isnt the preachor, it's those who would take him seriousely.
and sencoring/ banning views on the account that you disagree or dislike whats being said is walking a very dangerouse path!

 

[Zenith]

Yes I have read the quite stupid post about terrorismbombings. Im well aware of the amount of terrorismacts. What do you think, Access Denied, that Im pro-terrorism?

No, ofcourse I am not. Terrorism is awful, and the bombings is morbid to no end. It needs to be dealt with.

Now, on the other hand, and it is one of the things I often find myself cornered up for, I dont think the military, esp. the ones behind the scene actually giving the orders, are without blood on their hands. Killing civilians is killing civilians, done by the military or terrorists.

 

[Mabs]

Apologies was in a rush before i head home, yes you are right i didnt read the last reply properly

Lets make it simpler
Do you or do you not support a ban on the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoon and subsequent material that was deemed extremly offensive to whatever target grp

Yes or no

fair enough

and no i dont.
its called satire. if you have a problem with that, then fine, thats your right to be offended. it isnt your right to go kill people .

and will you please stop putting PBUH whenever you write mohammed. unless you are in fact a mulsim. which i doubt.

 

[Mabs]

Anyway - you seem to be trying to suggest that it's absurd to think that we should stick up for the freedom of speech of extremists, like it somehow makes us agree with their position. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". The protest linked in the OP is total dogwank, and those guys are fuckwits, but as long as they're doing it peacefully - suck up the offence. It's the price of living in a free society.

In my opinion.

i have no problem with people having freedom of speech. i have a SERIOUS problem with people denigrating the hard work of people who are fighting and DYING to protect that right.
that IS sick.

 

[nath]

i have no problem with people having freedom of speech. i have a SERIOUS problem with people denigrating the hard work of people who are fighting and DYING to protect that right.
that IS sick.

Sorry, but tough shit. I agree, it's fucked up and I think it's massively tasteless. I also think they shouldn't do it, it's disrespectful and shit.

However, and this is the main point, I don't think it should be illegal.

 

[Chronictank]

fair enough

and no i dont.
its called satire. if you have a problem with that, then fine, thats your right to be offended.

that is just pure double standards and hypocracy and that pretty much ends the discussion as there is no reasoning with thinking like that

it isnt your right to go kill people .

They aren't killing anyone either ,

and will you please stop putting PBUH whenever you write mohammed. unless you are in fact a mulsim. which i doubt.

No i wont, its how he is supposed to be represented or should that be banned too because it doesnt follow your way of thinking?

Why not just go the whole 9 yards and make anyone who doesn't follow your way second class citizens, take away their right to vote after all they arent allowed opinions perhaps even hang a few from trees and segregate neighbourhoods and busses.
Now while this in on the surface is a ridiculous dig, this is exactly the thinking you are advocating

to answer your earlier question (again), no i dont think its ok
I didnt think the cartoon's were ok, nor is the gay bashing that is now taboo
If that makes me ignorant i will gladly take the title because at least it doesn't make me someone like you who is happy to discriminate agaisnt people because they refuse to have your views forced upon them

 

[Mabs]

im in the middle of something and ill check later

but chronic if you have -EVER- used the word "God" without a CAPITAL G you are a hypocrit.
i will check your post history later

 

[Chronictank]

im in the middle of something and ill check later

but chronic if you have -EVER- used the word "god" without a CAPITAL G you are a hypocrit.
i will check your post history later

Depends if i am refering to the God or god as a concept
I also will want a source that it needs to be ""god" without a CAPITAL G" as well as a corresponding quote of someone telling me it should be that way prior to now

Good luck with that

 

[BloodOmen]

Wrong, i dont see the point in it because you refuse to answer any of mine so why should i bother wasting my time with you anymore?
The very fact you refuse to answer the point i raised at the start of the thread shows exactly what your agenda for creating this thread was, to go on a rant about extremists and be patted on the back about it. I laid the trap as i already knew what the responce would be and you fell for it hook line and sinker just like i knew Mabs would. Wo and behold there he is posting below you about how i somehow am a racist and support the desceration of peoples funerals


Wrong again, i raised this very point in 2005 when the danish cartoons came out and the freedom of speach bridgage (who are now against the concept they were defending that time around) said it should be allowed. Many people here routinely post them knowing fully well the ill-feeling they generate.
I on the other hand simply stated that if one is allowed so should the multitude of sick b*****ds out there be allowed to spread there wares and it is double standards pure and simple to suggest otherwise provided they are within the confines of the law.


None of the boards supported terrorism from the pictures on the news, whether you think they do or not is of no relevance to this particular instance we are discussing. If they had boards supporting terrorims they would have been disperesed/arrested just abu hamzah and his cronies.
You can correct me if you can provide evidence to the contrary and i will condede your point, until then you have simply made this up


And again rather than try and justify your side of the argument you post blatant bullsh**.
I have not at any point in this thread supported their views, if you think i have show me a quote.

I have however repeatedly said that if one side is able to spout their rubbish the other should equally be allowed to.
If one side is going to be censored then so should the others, i have clarified this point several times and posed it to you as a outright question in my last reply, every time you ignore the argument completely and go for a personal attack.

If you want my opinion on my personal opinion of the matter, i think they all should have been sensored as none of them are able to responibly express themselves which is exactly what i said in the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoon thread and the subsequent discussions when this came up.

Lol, you really are a funny little man. I made the thread because I was disgusted by a protest and I wanted to see how other people felt about it.

And the same as you I already knew when I posted anything with "Muslim" or "Extremists" in one of the first replies would be you, since you have with all other related threads.

Anyway back on topic, the people protesting that day were extremists and they DO support terroism.

Quote taken from one of the very extremists that was there on that day protesting.

"'They [the soldiers] have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people.

'They can't come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?'"

Also adding in the very same interview

"'When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated,' he said.

'That magnificent action split the world into two camps - you were either with Islam and Al Qaeda, or with the enemy."

So I think they do support terrorism which shouldn't give them the right to protest at all. Before you reply with "One man can't be account for what all think" they're a community, it was an organized protest of hatred.

 

[Olgaline]

Why not just go the whole 9 yards and make anyone who doesn't follow your way second class citizens, take away their right to vote after all they arent allowed opinions perhaps even hang a few from trees and segregate neighbourhoods and busses.
Now while this in on the surface is a ridiculous dig, this is exactly the thinking you are advocating

I'm all for it...
I've talked about it often, I call it Democratic dictatirship!
You: The people, have all the rights that come with a democracy
I: The Leader, Claim the right, when ever i choose or see fit to temporarily waver democracy for the greater good of the nation.

you get to say, think, belive whatever you want, as long as it dosent disagree with me!
result: everyone wins!

 

[Mabs]

Depends if i am refering to the God or god as a concept
I also will want a source that it needs to be ""god" without a CAPITAL G" as well as a corresponding quote of someone telling me it should be that way prior to now

Good luck with that

english language 101

"proper noun"

thank you and good night