Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Your posts remind me of the time my dog tried to play Trivial Pursuit. She was diverting, knocking the game board about, etc. She still ended up six slices short of a pie when all was said and done, though. Classic pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 CNN reporting one gunman got away. **** will hit fan if true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Of course it wasnt deserved, but what they did was certainly ill advised, especially in the wake of the danish comics. The unfortunate side effect of free speech is the possibility of retailiation. Ill accept that you'll callme an idiot but there is a possibility if you continue to offend ill punch you in the face. The problem is CH poked a very angry bear where islamic extremism is concerned. Certainly these people are abhorant (the extremists that is) but they clearly wanted a valid target and decided CH was one. Especially after the threats from IS and Al Quaida. That doesnt of course, make things just or excused. Terrorism in its nature generally appears as small, hard to anticipate attacks that aim to change the way people live their lives. France need to resist that, but more importantly we need to resist a widespread anti islamic canpaign as in the whole that will make matters worse. It depends on whether you are prepared to let the extremists take free speech away from you or whether you are prepared to stand up for it. The editor Charbonnier knew he was risking his life and was prepared to make that sacrifice. He was incredibly brave, I m not sure I would be able to do the same for a principle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30737156 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 CNN reporting one gunman got away. **** will hit fan if true The gunmen are dead, the woman accomplice got away apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I think you should concentrate on pestering those Masons as you obviously did not read my post regarding Muslims condemning I apologise, obviously I didn't understand what you wrote. Perhaps you can repeat what you said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Looks like there will be dead Islamic nutters now. That is a shame. I would rather see them go through the process and end up rotting in jail somewhere. Still, I hope they aren't too dispappointed if the vigin's promised aren't to their taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 It depends on whether you are prepared to let the extremists take free speech away from you or whether you are prepared to stand up for it. The editor Charbonnier knew he was risking his life and was prepared to make that sacrifice. He was incredibly brave, I m not sure I would be able to do the same for a principle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30737156 There was no chance they would have taken free speech away with or without a mocking reference to the prophet mohamed. Some may call him brave and some would call him stupid. It wasnt needed, certainly, as I said before, after the danish comic incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Away from all the petty arguments and disagreements in this thread, thoughts are with the families and friends of the hostages involved. The world's a pretty ****ed up place in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 It depends on whether you are prepared to let the extremists take free speech away from you or whether you are prepared to stand up for it. The editor Charbonnier knew he was risking his life and was prepared to make that sacrifice. He was incredibly brave, I m not sure I would be able to do the same for a principle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30737156 Is it brave when you're risking the lives of others as well though, or selfish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 There was no chance they would have taken free speech away with or without a mocking reference to the prophet mohamed. Some may call him brave and some would call him stupid. It wasnt needed, certainly, as I said before, after the danish comic incident. Of course he was brave. The cartoons might not have been a wise decision, but what about a critical article of Islam for example? Should publications avoid publishing them through fear of murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Of course he was brave. The cartoons might not have been a wise decision, but what about a critical article of Islam for example? Should publications avoid publishing them through fear of murder? Im not talking about the articles Im talking about mocking the prophet, which Brave or not was certainly ill advised. Lets not pretend Im campaigning against freedom of speech, Im not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) Im not talking about the articles Im talking about mocking the prophet, which Brave or not was certainly ill advised. Lets not pretend Im campaigning against freedom of speech, Im not. But my point is, what else could be deemed ill advised? Should a publication avoid publisihing any article criticising a religion, if they fear it could possible attract an attack. Where is the line to be drawn? Edited 9 January, 2015 by Sour Mash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 This is not a religion. LEARN TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Anonymous are going on the attack...always find their videos freaky as sin. I can see Pap being one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 But my point is, what else could be deemed ill advised? Should a publication avoid publisihing any article criticising a religion, if they fear it could possible attrack an attack. Where is the line to be drawn? Again, Im not criticising the publications freedom to publish as they wish, thats up to them as an organisation and as human beings. But just as it is your right to call the biggest bully in the playground a pig ignorant ***** Id certainly say it was ill advised. You are more than welcome to say that is brave, Id say it was foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Anonymous are going on the attack...always find their videos freaky as sin. I can see Pap being one of them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11335676/Hacktivists-Anonymous-says-it-will-avenge-Charlie-Hebdo-attacks-by-shutting-down-jihadist-websites.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Again, Im not criticising the publications freedom to publish as they wish, thats up to them as an organisation and as human beings. But just as it is your right to call the biggest bully in the playground a pig ignorant ***** Id certainly say it was ill advised. You are more than welcome to say that is brave, Id say it was foolish. But that's what I'm saying. Loads of controversial articles can be considered foolish in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 But that's what I'm saying. Loads of controversial articles can be considered foolish in hindsight. Then what are you argueing about ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Then what are you argueing about ? Will everybody stop shouting?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Again, Im not criticising the publications freedom to publish as they wish, thats up to them as an organisation and as human beings. But just as it is your right to call the biggest bully in the playground a pig ignorant ***** Id certainly say it was ill advised. You are more than welcome to say that is brave, Id say it was foolish. What about Life of Brian? There were protest cos some including Muslims saw offence. So if the Christian militants were more fanatical and started shooting up cinemas would you say Monty Python would have been foolish to make? I sort of agree with you but the point is an anticipated fanatical reaction shouldn't dictate what is free speech it should be the material itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Then what are you argueing about ? That it is easy to call a journalist's decision "foolish" once he's been shot dead, a bit harder for them to make the call as to which controversial pieces they should run with and which they should drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Who stitched Abu Hamza up with having his sentencing done today of all days http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30754959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 It is a bit like insulting the school bully though isn't it? If he says he's going to kick your head in if you call him a massive fat ugger, at some point he's going to. Thin line between brave/stupid, cowardly/clever imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 That it is easy to call a journalist's decision "foolish" once he's been shot dead, a bit harder for them to make the call as to which controversial pieces they should run with and which they should drop. As soon as I saw the pictures years ago I decided it was probably a bit silly considering what has happened in the past. And whelk, Im not proposing that material such as that should be banned. Its up to them as individuals to decide where the line is. All I am saying is that retaliation cant really be seen as surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Who stitched Abu Hamza up with having his sentencing done today of all days http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30754959 Ah, there's the reason Mossad gone and done the cartoon massacre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 As soon as I saw the pictures years ago I decided it was probably a bit silly considering what has happened in the past. And whelk, Im not proposing that material such as that should be banned. Its up to them as individuals to decide where the line is. All I am saying is that retaliation cant really be seen as surprising. Blaming the journalist is like blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. People have died in the past defending freedom of speech and personally I think it's honourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aziz Yebda Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Muslims bloody love a laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 To say all of this is not a surprise due to a cartoon is nuts Protesting in Paris (or elsewhere) is fair game Killing random people over a few days is just disgraceful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Blaming the journalist is like blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. People have died in the past defending freedom of speech and personally I think it's honourable. Jesus christ, are you lot deliberately misinterpreting what I have said ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 To say all of this is not a surprise due to a cartoon is nuts Protesting in Paris (or elsewhere) is fair game Killing random people over a few days is just disgraceful Is it acceptable ? No Is it surprising due to the threats and previous retaliation due to making fun of the prophet mohamed ? No Its really not dofficult to comprehend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Jesus christ, are you lot deliberately misinterpreting what I have said ? I understand totally and is sensible approach just when analyse it is their extremism dictating nit the content therefore a blow to free speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Jesus christ, are you lot deliberately misinterpreting what I have said ? Saying "retaliation isn't surprising" is effectively saying that they should expect reprisals and therefore that they have brought this on themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Is it acceptable ? No Is it surprising due to the threats and previous retaliation due to making fun of the prophet mohamed ? No Its really not dofficult to comprehend I'm not struggling to comprehend what you are saying. Just think it is all pretty tragic (this event, not you) that a killing spree in the name of Islam over cartoons in a place like Paris is not seen as a surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 If Freedom of Speech is now the most important thing to the whole of France why didn't their government and security forces keep better tabs on these two psychos? (as well as defend the journalists workplace properly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 If Freedom of Speech is now the most important thing to the whole of France why didn't their government and security forces keep better tabs on these two psychos? (as well as defend the journalists workplace properly) Because when the security services want to monitor social media and things online, people go nuts and stop it from happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) Because when the security services want to monitor social media and things online, people go nuts and stop it from happening People get more annoyed with the fact the US is hoovering up every other country's data. Pretty sure 99% of people are cool with death threat, ak47,terrorism training camp types having their phones and emails tapped. Edited 9 January, 2015 by Jonnyboy I'm a frikkin genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 People get more annoyed with the fact the US is hoovering up every other country's data. Yep, they probably do anyway Along with Russia and China Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I understand totally and is sensible approach just when analyse it is their extremism dictating nit the content therefore a blow to free speech It depends how you look, anything can be defended behind the shield that is free speech. And dont get me wrong that is a good thing. We have to defend our rights to that. We have to ensure that we do not now break in the face of it. But there is a line within which it goes into the realms of poking for a reason. As i said before, calling the playground bully a fat idiot is free speech, but I wouldnt say it is necessarily adviseable and after the retaliation cannot be considered unlikely. THAT DOESNT mean I am in anyway being anti free speech, defending the actions of the extremists or considering that the journalist is to blame. It was an abhorant atrocity carried out by those determined to change the way we live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Saying "retaliation isn't surprising" is effectively saying that they should expect reprisals and therefore that they have brought this on themselves. Would you say after the danish incident comicalising the prophet mohamed was adviseable ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I'm not struggling to comprehend what you are saying. Just think it is all pretty tragic (this event, not you) that a killing spree in the name of Islam over cartoons in a place like Paris is not seen as a surprise I completely agree, but unfortunately it is the current world we live in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintmatt Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 BBC saying hostage taking in montpellier unrelated to incidents today. Pardon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Would you say after the danish incident comicalising the prophet mohamed was adviseable ? Depends who does the advising. Personally I think it's vital that cartoons like this exists because when you start censoring things for fear of reprisals then these idiots get what they want. Look at South Park as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Depends who does the advising. Personally I think it's vital that cartoons like this exists because when you start censoring things for fear of reprisals then these idiots get what they want. Look at South Park as an example. I agree But do you think it was adviseable ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I agree But do you think it was adviseable ? Depends who does the advising. Personally I think it's vital that cartoons like this exists because when you start censoring things for fear of reprisals then these idiots get what they want. Look at South Park as an example. Hypo, you have Muslim friends and associates. Would you ever dream of depicting Mohammed in a way that you knew they would find offensive in order to show it to them? If so, would your justification be that it was vital that the depiction existed? There are all kinds of ways one can use freedom of expression to be critical of Islam. You do not have to go for the holiest of holies, repeatedly. I agree with Smirking. It was ill-advised and in my view, ostentatiously provocative. The French knew this too, which is presumably why they had police bodyguards assigned to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Hypo, you have Muslim friends and associates. Would you ever dream of depicting Mohammed in a way that you knew they would find offensive in order to show it to them? If so, would your justification be that it waw vital that they existed. There are all kinds of ways one can use freedom of expression to be critical of Islam. You do not have to go for the holiest of holies, repeatedly. I agree with Smirking. It was ill-advised and in my view, ostentatiously provocative. The French knew this too, which is presumably why they had police bodyguards assigned to them. Of course hypo would dream of doing that. Like he probably would not dream of going down Canary Wharf and throwing eggs at bankers, or going through Birmingham slating Hinduism, or going down Southsea calling everyone in sight a pikey skate LoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Of course hypo would dream of doing that. Like he probably would not dream of going down Canary Wharf and throwing eggs at bankers, or going through Birmingham slating Hinduism, or going down Southsea calling everyone in sight a pikey skate LoL Down, girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Down, girl. Shhhh pap It's only the Internet, stuff like this (and cartoons) should not be serious business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Shhhh pap It's only the Internet, stuff like this (and cartoons) should not be serious business If you stop trying to limit my freedom of expression, you shall have a treat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 If you stop trying to limit my freedom of expression, you shall have a treat You carry on provoking me...... Well, so not be surprised of the consequences!!!!!! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 9 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) You carry on provoking me...... Well, so not be surprised of the consequences!!!!!! :-) This conversation just happened:- "Mum!! I'm getting offered out by Jamie on SaintsWeb. Jamie! The one who used to post as thedelldays, now posts as Batman and pretended to be called Brett. The one everyone thinks is a chef, like Steven Seagal in Under Siege, only gingerer. Spends all his time forming incomplete sentences and provoking people. He says there will be consequences if I provoke him back some more." "No I don't know if he means fisticuffs. I don't even think he knows what he's saying half the fúcking time. It's very confusing for the rest of us. What should I do? He might have a utility belt now!" Jamie, on the advice of my mum I have been instructed to apologise for my pinpoint píss-taking. Sorry for the pinpoint píss-taking. I trust that this transcript shows what a big wuss I am, phoning my mum, etc. Check my shame. Edited 9 January, 2015 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now