Paris shootings

[Trem]

Uhoh... someone hacked @Scouse. That shit is so out of character.

No it isn't.

 

[leggy]

Jupitus closed the thread because of this. Learning isn't hard.

 

[Bodhi]

Think this article just about nails it imo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...the-freedom-to-live-in-a-secular-society.html

 

[caLLous]

Like I said a few pages ago before @BloodOmen went full-spaz; Muslims getting pissy about drawings is a Muslim thing, non-Muslims can do what they like.

(It doesn't help that the second question in his "test" isn't a yes/no answer so just saying "if it's the latter" doesn't make it very clear.)

 

[Raven]

If you go looking for something that will offend you, you will find it.

Having said that, you can't go out of your way to offend a particular group of people and then in the next breath say you respect all people equally.

The second cartoon was unnecessary and designed specifically to upset all Muslims.

 

[Wij]

Fanny-batter-scratchings

 

[Wij]

It'll fail. Most private members bills do. But the government needs to be seen to be receptive to the demands of the religious in an election year.

Actually it's cleared the commons unopposed and with an amendment to make prayers MANDATORY in it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mps-must-pretend-to-be-religious-9983538.html

Theocracy here we come and the two big parties support it.

 

[Raven]

This shit is hilarious


View: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=951491634861748


Firstly. A British soldier based in Germany is not going to be living in a "block of flats" full of Turks and Afgans, they are going to be living on camp.

Secondly OPSEC does not mean own personal security, it means Operational security, two completely different things.

Thirdly "sent" a suspicious phone call...what?

Fourthly, the British Army based in Germany have no orders from the German army or government...

This sort of bollocks is amusing but pretty dangerous when in the hands of racist wierdos.

I get lots of posts on facebook from a primary school friend, used to be a sound lad but now basically posts all sorts of Britain first bollocks. The ironic thing is, he works on cruise ships and is always posting genuinely interesting things about foreign countries, one of the only people I know who can claim to have had a holiday in the antarctic, because he has.

 

[Turamber]

Think this article just about nails it imo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11348033/This-isnt-about-free-speech-its-about-the-freedom-to-live-in-a-secular-society.html

Is it necessary to say or do whatever we like even when it impinges upon the sensibilities of others? The author of the article doesn't want his world affected by the world view of others. But what gives him, or the Charles Hebdo people, the right to assault the sensibilities of others ... just because it isn't important to them?

I'd rather live in peace with my neighbour if possible.

 

[Wij]

Is it necessary to say or do whatever we like even when it impinges upon the sensibilities of others? The author of the article doesn't want his world affected by the world view of others. But what gives him, or the Charles Hebdo people, the right to assault the sensibilities of others ... just because it isn't important to them?

I'd rather live in peace with my neighbour if possible.

It is necessary to demonstrate that violence cannot buy silence or everyone will start their own demands with threats.

Also: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-pope-francis-doesnt-understand-charlie-hebdo

 

[Turamber]

It is necessary to demonstrate that violence cannot buy silence or everyone will start their own demands with threats.

I understand that. Even if somebody were to threaten my life I wouldn't give up my religious belief, and I'm sure many atheists feel the same way about their non-belief. But what "belief" is behind the mocking of Mohammed and Islam? From where I'm sitting there doesn't appear to be any reason for it, beyond selling a few magazines.

 

[Job]

These muslim extremists which is a bit weird if you think about it, sort of says all muslims want to destroy the west but aren't as extreme.
Anyway they have a long history of dragging their own into a pile of shit..those Chechen idiots who massacared a school brought genocide on their country while the world turned a blind eye.

 

[Wij]

I understand that. Even if somebody were to threaten my life I wouldn't give up my religious belief, and I'm sure many atheists feel the same way about their non-belief. But what "belief" is behind the mocking of Mohammed and Islam? From where I'm sitting there doesn't appear to be any reason for it, beyond selling a few magazines.

You can't allow for what people might get offended by in the name of their religion. It just isn't possible to please everyone. For instance the supposed ban on depictions of Mohammed is being depicted as a universal Muslim thing but is nothing of the sort (it's a Salafist thing) and banning it would restrict the freedoms of Shia and Ahmadi to practice their religion. There will always be cases where allowing religions to demand respect for their beliefs will impinge on the rights of others. That's why you have to draw the line. If your religion says you can't do something then don't do it. It should have no effect on others. It's simply not workable.

Jesus is a prophet in Islam so your depictions of him, especially on the cross which did not happen according to conventional Islam, are offensive to some Muslims. Do you want to risk offending them or just carry on with your religion?

Also: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2015/01/17/secular-society-defending-the-right-to-offend/

 

[old.Tohtori]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLBi_x-4Y0o


Something to chew on and probably spit out as "hogwash" by some individuals.

 

[DaGaffer]

I understand that. Even if somebody were to threaten my life I wouldn't give up my religious belief, and I'm sure many atheists feel the same way about their non-belief. But what "belief" is behind the mocking of Mohammed and Islam? From where I'm sitting there doesn't appear to be any reason for it, beyond selling a few magazines.

You're obviously not aware of the history of Charlie Hebdo's Mohammed posts. They did it as a reaction to the threats that came after the Danish cartoons back in '05. For Charlie Hebdo it was a point of principle that the press shouldn't be silenced because someone doesn't like something. So there's your "belief", the belief in freedom of thought, which I personally think is a lot more important that what a desert preacher looked like.

 

[Job]

I see 42% of French people think they shouldn't print pictures of Mohammed...so the terrorists are winning...seriously sad..once they taste this victory it will be everything we hold sacred next, this WILL end in total war within twenty years..the pieces are in place and anyone who thinks that is fantasy has given very little thought to huge forces that are pressing against each other.

 

[Job]

Armed police protecting jews all over europe, UK police officers told to take their names off the eloctoral roll, soon it will be soldiers at airports and any large events, increased security at power stations, waterworks, gas pipelines...this will just spiral out of control until the string snaps.

 

[Trem]

42% of French people are probably cheese eating surrender monkeys.....

 

[DaGaffer]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLBi_x-4Y0o


Something to chew on and probably spit out as "hogwash" by some individuals.

Not much I'd disagree with in any of that. The only caveat is the definition of "terrorist attack" isn't made clear; there are lots of things attributed to say "The Real IRA" (or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days), which would be described as a terrorist attack (because the people doing it are a terrorist organisation) but are actually really common-or-garden extortion, intimidation or robberies. Most European separatist groups are pretty half-arsed these days.

The most telling is that you're waaay more likely to get killed by a cop than a terrorist in America.

 

[Scouse]

Satirising the satirisers:

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

 

[fettoken]

Can't someone ban Job please. Obvious he's been paid to spread propaganda over the internet!

 

[Job]

It's my right to free speech and you want to ban me....something familiar here.

 

[Gwadien]

It's my right to free speech and you want to ban me....something familiar here.

What's your opinion on the Government's proposals to ban non-violent extremist from their free speech?

 

[Job]

Let them do it..only against the law if you encourage people to commit a crime.

 

[fettoken]

It's my right to free speech and you want to ban me....something familiar here.

Nah it's personal. You are genuinely annoying and should be posting your theories on Reddit or some such.

 

[Scouse]

only against the law if you encourage people to commit a crime.

Shouldn't be against the law either.

"You! - Stick your finger in the fire"
"Erm, no - fuck off"

 

[Embattle]

Seems they've stuck that Jordanian pilot in a cage and burnt him alive.

 

[Gwadien]

Seems they've stuck that Jordanian pilot in a cage and burnt him alive.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris Shootings?

 

[Embattle]

True probably should of put it in the Iraq thread or something but generally not sure it matters since most the threads generally have little to do with the thread subject matter after a short while.

 

[Gwadien]

True probably should of put it in the Iraq thread or something but generally not sure it matters since most the threads generally have little to do with the thread subject matter after a short while.