Paris shootings

[Scouse]

@BloodOmen, if I was going to deny anyone's rights to freedom of speech I'd choose you over Choudry any day of the week because the (being generous) misguided opinion you're espousing is more dangerous and has wider-ranging real-world consequences than any terrorist act that might be "insighted" by the inane babblings of a religious nutjob.

But then, I'd never do that - because it would defeat the whole point.

I absolutely, thoroughly detest what you're saying. I don't know why you say it but you clearly lack a basic understanding of A) what "free" speech actually is, B) what it means in practice and C) how to defend it.

However - as much as I'm absolutely boiling at your contemptible idiocy (and at Choudrys) - I'll defend to the death your right to be that big of a tit.

 

[Raven]

Jesus people...stfu.

 

[BloodOmen]

Let's look at it this way, what has freedom of speech allowed hate preachers to do?

- Allowed them to use both public and social media to call for attacks against various people and faiths (and by attacks I mean murder, its amazing what they can get away with when its worded right - if you aren't a Muslim your a target basically)

- Allowed radical Islam to run rampant over the west, after all they have freedom of speech, they can sit on a street corner or a public social networking platform and brain wash anyone willing to listen (which is a wider audience since they can spit their beliefs out legally remember!)

I totally agree though, these upstanding citizens clearly should be allowed to keep their rights for freedom of speech. Why try to cut the head off the snake when we can simply call them "Cunts" and let them get on with it, right? after all, its not as if they'll rush us with AK47's or try to blow themselves up near us.

 

[Scouse]

Let's look at it this way, what has freedom of speech allowed hate preachers to do?

Freedom of speech cannot be selective or it's not free. He's arguing from a viewpoint (one I vehemently disagree with) - but when you start legislating what can or cannot be said based on viewpoints then you're in very dangerous territory indeed - because all viewpoints are then fair game for banning. History has shown this.

It's much more dangerous to our society and our abilities to express ourselves within it than any terrorist act ever conceived.


Blood - unlike me I know you're a respecter of the armed forces. THIS is what our grandparents died for.

Edit: As an aside - John Stuart Mill thought that freedom of expression was both essential and under threat - not so much by law but by an oppressive public opinion (at least in England) (is that right @Wij?)

As I've got older I can't help but agree with him.

 

[Tom]

Let's look at it this way, what has freedom of speech allowed hate preachers to do?

- Allowed them to use both public and social media to call for attacks against various people and faiths (and by attacks I mean murder, its amazing what they can get away with when its worded right - if you aren't a Muslim your a target basically)

I wrote Choudary's Wikipedia article and I don't recall reading about him calling for anyone's murder. Perhaps you're thinking about Abu Hamza, who was charged, found guilty and imprisoned for inciting violence. Amazing what he got away with, eh?

- Allowed radical Islam to run rampant over the west

This has not happened though. Muslims remain a small minority in this country and radical Islam is a tiny minority of that.

they can sit on a street corner or a public social networking platform and brain wash anyone willing to listen (which is a wider audience since they can spit their beliefs out legally remember!)

Anyone can do that.

I totally agree though, these upstanding citizens clearly should be allowed to keep their rights for freedom of speech. Why try to cut the head off the snake when we can simply call them "Cunts" and let them get on with it, right? after all, its not as if they'll rush us with AK47's or try to blow themselves up near us.

You're conflating more than one issue. You're being a knob tbh. I wouldn't mind betting you share Britain First links on Facebook.

 

[caLLous]

I'm sure I remember he's shared some stuff from shady far-right blogs on here before so I wouldn't take you up on that bet @Tom.

 

[BloodOmen]

I wrote Choudary's Wikipedia article and I don't recall reading about him calling for anyone's murder.



This has not happened though. Muslims remain a small minority in this country and radical Islam is a tiny minority of that.



Anyone can do that.



You're conflating more than one issue. You're being a knob tbh. I wouldn't mind betting you share Britain First links on Facebook.

Ah, you've got me there Tom, the last thing I shared on facebook was indeed a Britain First link.



And Also, Anjem Choudary has said people should be killed, on a many occasions, its how he words it that allows him to do so. He's said numerous times people who insult Islam or Mohammed must be killed

So coming back to freedom of speech for a moment, its perfectly fine for him to sit and say that, even insult other faiths and none Muslims but the moment you say anything that could be seen as an insult to Islam or Mohammed (which could be fucking anything, they could pick the most trivial thing out or even a symbol/poem/food/movie - ANYTHING - and say "That's an insult to XYZ) and your dead basically, no if and or buts about it, your simply dead.

Here's the funny part though, he says that out in public, the moment you stick a camera in his face though he says "Muslims should not take the law into their own hands however, things should be done through a Sharia court in an Islamic state" yet he defends and praises acts like Lee Rigby's brutal murder and the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other atrocities committed by such people.

One final thing, I might indeed be a knob, I don't deny that nor do I give a flying fuck what you think, stop trying to pin the racist tail on the donkey though, because it just doesn't fucking wash, especially on this subject because Islam isn't a race, its a religion.

 

[Job]

In my opinion his comment leant towards he would have something to do with the consequences rather than pointing out the inevitable.
Anyone else would be investigated.

Good program tonight on CH4..angry white and proud, which starting with a rather condescending title will no doubt concentrate on tattooed football supporters to try and paint a picture of the right wing as Nazi's

 

[BloodOmen]

In my opinion his comment leant towards he would have something to do with the consequences rather than pointing out the inevitable.
Anyone else would be investigated.

No, he actually means people should be killed, its not a warning as to what might happen, he's actually saying it SHOULD happen.

Taken from a youtube clip, line before that was basically the same thing "People who insult Islam or Mohammed...."



The scary thing is the amount of radicals that listen to people like him and act upon it. You don't see him saying "You should not take the law into your own hands" during these public events, he reserves that hocus pocus for the cameras to make him seem more tame.

 

[Tom]

And Also, Anjem Choudary has said people should be killed, on a many occasions, its how he words it that allows him to do so. He's said numerous times people who insult Islam or Mohammed must be killed

You said murder, not "killed". But please do tell where Choudary has suggested someone be murdered, or killed. And by "killed" I mean not by the state.

So coming back to freedom of speech for a moment, its perfectly fine for him to sit and say that

You haven't yet demonstrated that he's said "that" so the rest of your sentence should be ignored.

Here's the funny part though, he says that out in public, the moment you stick a camera in his face though he says "Muslims should not take the law into their own hands however, things should be done through a Sharia court in an Islamic state" yet he defends and praises acts like Lee Rigby's brutal murder and the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other atrocities committed by such people.

I haven't read anything that suggests he praised Lee Rigby's murder. Perhaps if you have, you might care to present it here? Everything I've read points to him saying words to the effect of "I'm not surprised this has happened, this is because of the UK's actions in the Middle East. But I'm not going to condemn what they did." That is not praise.

One final thing, I might indeed be a knob, I don't deny that nor do I give a flying fuck what you think, stop trying to pin the racist tail on the donkey though, because it just doesn't fucking wash, especially on this subject because Islam isn't a race, its a religion.

I don't know if you're racist. You are, however, very ignorant.

 

[Scouse]

coming back to freedom of speech for a moment, its perfectly fine for him to sit and say that, even insult other faiths and none Muslims

In my opinion yes. Totally. I dislike it and disagree with it, but yep. Completely.

But if you pick up a gun and do what he says then you're a murderer (and a dumb cunt). Pure and simple. That's the principle of personal responsibility for your actions.


Lets turn it on it's head. Say you live under a horribly oppressive government - they've banned speech that advocates any form of violence.

Our "incitement to violence" laws ban muslims from directly advocating physical violence against westerners. But they also outlaw revolutionary discourse, should this country ever need it.

It's clear that the needs of the people to be able to discuss their options openly and freely, without fear of state repression - i.e. the locking away (or worse) of the more radical sides and opinions of a debate - are greater than the want to stop idiots being idiots.

It works that way at universities too - the most radical sides of debates often are the ones that bear fruit as they enable some humans to see differing points of view. And the laws we are passing are stifling debate in universities on all sorts of topics.

Suffering the idiocy of a few nutters like Choudry, and a small number of horrific, but statistically meaningless, deaths is the long-acknowledged price we must pay for a free society.

 

[BloodOmen]

You said murder, not "killed". But please do tell where Choudary has suggested someone be murdered, or killed. And by "killed" I mean not by the state.



You haven't yet demonstrated that he's said "that" so the rest of your sentence should be ignored.



I haven't read anything that suggests he praised Lee Rigby's murder. Perhaps if you have, you might care to present it here? Everything I've read points to him saying words to the effect of "I'm not surprised this has happened, this is because of the UK's actions in the Middle East. But I'm not going to condemn what they did." That is not praise.



I don't know if you're racist. You are, however, very ignorant.

He's saying people should be killed, if someone then goes off and kills someone, that is by definition murder.... or am I missing something here? I'm not sure how many other ways you can kill someone without it being murder? unless the people that are killed are armed, you could argue it being justified then.

“So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.

“That’s what I believe so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.

“We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don’t, then obviously if they die like that they’re going to the hellfires.”

The preacher went on to praise Michael Adebolajo, 28, who along with Michael Adebowale, 22, is accused of Drummer Rigby’s murder."

/shrug

AND

"Anjem Choudary took to Twitter to claim the attack on Charlie Hebdo headquarters for publishing cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad were justified."

"Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!" he tweeted."


But you already knew all that, I mean you wrote his wiki article.

 

[Tom]

or am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing knowledge. This is a pointless discussion as you obviously have no intention of doing anything other than being prejudiced. I particularly like how you use tabloid sources and peacock words to support your argument.

 

[BloodOmen]

Yes, you're missing knowledge. This is a pointless discussion as you obviously have no intention of doing anything other than being prejudiced.

Ok.

 

[Gwadien]

@BloodOmen I don't think you truly understand the impact that freedom has speech on every aspect of this argument.

From a standard point of view, if you think about it, we have to find compelling arguments against Choudary to stop people from siding with him.

If he wasn't in the open, and was sort of 'underground' then it would be MUCH harder to argue against him and it would be much easier for him to recruit.

Also from a Government perspective, for the same reasons as listed before, you can bet your bottom dollar that most the stupid people that want to blow theirselves up will use Choudary as a point of access, and you really don't think that our secret services know exactly who has sided with Choudary and keeps eyes on them?

If we removed his freedom of speech, then they'd simply go underground and be MUCH harder for them to be tracked.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dss_9FmCqtg

 

[Job]

I'm afraid the horse has bolted..Muslims are trusted by no one..it's not if but when drastic measures are taken..we simply cannot live under such high levels of security for much longer..it's them or us and people will not care or choose the innocent from the guilty, call me a nutbox if you like but the clock is ticking.

 

[Gwadien]

I'm afraid the horse has bolted..Muslims are trusted by no one..it's not if but when drastic measures are taken..we simply cannot live under such high levels of security for much longer..it's them or us and people will not care or choose the innocent from the guilty, call me a nutbox if you like but the clock is ticking.

Yeah, I think it's about time I ignore you.

You're starting to seriously wind me up, either you're a total fucking retard or you're the best troll ever.

 

[Scouse]

"Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!" he tweeted."

We have to show him that it does.

We have to show him that freedom of expression means saying whatever you damn well like without fear of reprisal - but murder is murder and will be punished to the full extent of the law.

Think what you like (and say what you think). Not DO what you like.

 

[Job]

Yeah, I think it's about time I ignore you.

You're starting to seriously wind me up, either you're a total fucking retard or you're the best troll ever.

Maybe you should watch the Foxnews video...there is a huge majority who are not bothered talking it out anymore in the US..don't be fooled by the liberal celebrities and press..there is something nasty on the way.

 

[Scouse]

@Gwadien - yep, that foxnews video does represent the views of an awful lot of retards. I'm pretty sure Job simply plays devils advocate in most of his posts.

 

[caLLous]

 

[fettoken]

"Christian crusade against islam". Wow..he's only a few years late with that statement.

It's not anyone from the west goes there and bombs the shit out of them...oooooops. Then taking the piss out of an underdeveloped, mentally unstable god-worshiping lunatics by making fun of them.

I mean, what did they expect? Je suis Charlie..what a joke!

 

[fettoken]

@Gwadien - yep, that foxnews video does represent the views of an awful lot of retards. I'm pretty sure Job simply plays devils advocate in most of his posts.

It would take a quiet sick and disturbed individual to pull off such a long going streak of mentally challenged posts and pointing out the..well not obvious but close. No Scouse, i think acceptance is key.

 

[BloodOmen]

You're quite an angry person in general aren't you @Scouse? for someone who respects other peoples rights you do like to argue over them. I assume I'm now painted as some sort of Muslim hating monster in your angry little mind? you'd be wrong if that's the case, the only people I'm having a go at here is Radical Islam, if you want to generalise Islam/say they're all the same then that's your problem, I don't look at Islam like that.

Radical Islam - Mentalists who just want to control any none Muslim, they don't care about your rights, they don't care about your views and beliefs, if you aren't with them then your against them - its that simple - They don't respect our rights, so why the fuck should we respect their right to freedom of speech?

Islam - Normal Muslims who just want to get on with their life, nothing more to say, they're worlds apart from the nutters above.

I have no issue at all with none Radicals, I just don't believe people who incite hatred and murder of innocents should have the right to freedom of speech, this is where our opinions differ, where as you look at freedom of speech as a whole - I do not, you could argue if you start censoring such people it just allows governments to come out and use it whenever they want to shut someone up, that's fair enough and you're probably right there, it doesn't mean that hate preachers should be allowed to continue doing what they're doing though.

 

[old.Tohtori]

@Scouse doesn't respect other peoples opinions, he only respects the right(ish).

Not that it matters since it's essentially saying "You have a right to live here but f*ck off!"

 

[fettoken]

I actually agree with Scouse here. Bloodomen's view is very naive and the world doesn't work like that.

 

[BloodOmen]

I actually agree with Scouse here. Bloodomen's view is very naive and the world doesn't work like that.

And the world works perfectly as it is now? now whose being naive?

 

[Gwadien]

@BloodOmen watch the Paranoma about this, the guy makes an excellent point, the tories actively want to make new laws to restrict freedom of speech then Cameron went to France and started going on about how we had to defend our freedom of speech and restricting it would be terrible.

In fact. The former French PM said that if we restrict our freedom of speech then we turn into slaves who cannot question, if we start restricting terrorists freedom of speech, all its going to do is turn more Muslims to extremism; why are we being picked on? I want the world to be Islam, of course I do, but I'm not actively doing anything about it, but why can't I air those opinions?

Im pretty sure some people would find it equally offensive if I said I wanted there to be more equality of wealth, but because I'm not brown, wearing traditional Arab clothing and I don't have a long beard. People aren't too bothered.

 

[BloodOmen]

@Scouse doesn't respect other peoples opinions, he only respects the right(ish).

Not that it matters since it's essentially saying "You have a right to live here but f*ck off!"

Of course he doesn't, he enjoys beating people down because of their opinions, even harps on about respecting other peoples opinions.. then he doesn't respect peoples opinions, its actually amusing reading what he writes most of the time, its so easy to push his buttons on purpose.

 

[Gwadien]

Scouse does respect other peoples opinions, ive managed to compromise a couple of times when talking to him on Steam.

If he didn't respect your opinions or want to listen to them he wouldn't harass you to get them out.