sadoldgit Posted 20 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 November, 2015 That depends if you're referring to Islam or 'Islam'. Quite so. Just because they are using a book to sort out hostages does not mean that a whole religion is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 The BBC's Andrew Neil, not exactly being overly reticent in expressing his personal opinion on the France v ISIS question. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-neil-skewers-isis-scumbags-6865871 I should cancel that summer holiday in the Middle East if I were you Andrew ... Wonderfully put though. Much better than the 'John Oliver' one he was reputedly 'ripping off' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 George Galloway and Portillio talking complete sense, strange to find myself agreeing with Galloway, bit he was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 George Galloway and Portillio talking complete sense, strange to find myself agreeing with Galloway, bit he was spot on. Totally agree. Politicians tend to speak much more sense and are more of one voice when they arent grandstanding for votes. That hat and weird lighting for a debate programme though. Looked more like he was going into a saxophone solo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 There is a case to be made that we should not be protected from the uncensored truth of the world and we need to see everything in order to fully comprehend the horror of it. Others may feel that publishing/broadcasting images of the Paris massacre victims (for example) is both offensive and unnecessary - afterall we do very well know what happened without having to see it. I'm agnostic whether reproducing those horrible images of the Bataclan Theatre is justified or not. I do wonder however just how those pictures became such public property? If some official gave them to the media and some money changed hands ... well then I would hope that most on here would agree that this would be distasteful - to put it mildly. As Stalin is oft quoted as saying (most likely inaccurately), "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". History has shown us that the higher the death toll, the harder it is for the public at large find to to truly comprehend the depths to which oppressors, murderers, and torturers will sink to achieve their aims. ?You make the claim that afterall we do very well know what happened without having to see it. . But the truth is in the Image that coveys the horror in one shot, not a description that may be edited for reason of decency, or use poetic reflection to disguise the scope of the carnage in fear of causing 'distress'. No words can aspire to encapsulate the unforgiving reality of the 'Bataclan Photo'. I do wonder however just how those pictures became such public property? If some official gave them to the media and some money changed hands ... well then I would hope that most on here would agree that this would be distasteful - to put it mildly This is pretty poor fare. The position you're trying to use as a reason to invalidate the image is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario you've conjured up from thin air. This is not the first time a false stance has been suggested, that detracts from the known facts of the massacre on this thread, but I would hope it is the last. After the Lockerbie Bombing, the photographer who captured the immediate aftermath and the effect on the local population received no remuneration after his Photos were wired out and used in papers worldwide. He never chased it up, as he reconsigned exactly what it was he was portraying, and that it was what the world needed to see. During the First World War, Mail sent home was censored, and D-Notices were used to suppress any images that the government found 'Unhelpful', usually any that the depicted the monstrosity of the Western Front, or repugnant conditions it was fought in, and the levels of inhumanity needed to survive. Images had to be smuggled, and this led to a widespread ignorance of the War and its toll on the veterans who returned, especially concerning shell shock, and what we would today classify as 'PTSD'. Ironically, after these lessons from history, there are sections of the public and the media arguing that we should protected from 'harmful' news and media. For what ultimate purpose, I won't speculate. But it does remind me the instructions (particularly #6) given to prisoners of the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war and Cambodian Genocide at Security Prison 21. 1. You must answer accordingly to my question. Don’t turn them away. 2. Don’t try to hide the facts by making pretexts this and that, you are strictly prohibited to contest me. 3. Don’t be a fool for you are a chap who dare to thwart the revolution. 4. You must immediately answer my questions without wasting time to reflect. 5. Don’t tell me either about your immoralities or the essence of the revolution. 6. While getting lashes or electrification you must not cry at all. 7. Do nothing, sit still and wait for my orders. If there is no order, keep quiet. When I ask you to do something, you must do it right away without protesting. 8. Don’t make pretext about Kampuchea Krom in order to hide your secret or traitor. 9. If you don’t follow all the above rules, you shall get many lashes of electric wire. 10. If you disobey any point of my regulations you shall get either ten lashes or five shocks of electric discharge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327456/Russia-unleashes-cruise-missiles-Caspian-Sea-targets-Syria-steps-bombing-campaign.html nice vid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327456/Russia-unleashes-cruise-missiles-Caspian-Sea-targets-Syria-steps-bombing-campaign.html nice vid Let's hope they're bombing the right targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 20 November, 2015 Share Posted 20 November, 2015 ... This is pretty poor fare. The position you're trying to use as a reason to invalidate the image is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario you've conjured up from thin air. This is not the first time a false stance has been suggested, that detracts from the known facts of the massacre on this thread, but I would hope it is the last ... But the record shows that I have at no stage questioned the authenticity of the image. So the thinking behind the highlighted passage is something of a mystery to me. Again you appear to busy fabricating an enormous mountain from nothing more than the most diminutive of molehills. I was simply wondering how the horrific image - an image that you chose to post on here - made its way into the public domain. Now if you know the answer to this question then I'm sure many on here would be most interested to see it. Until that answer becomes clear, then for the time being I can only presume that either one of the terrorists uploaded the image to the Internet before they were killed, or (much more likley I think) the image has been obtained somehow from a official French source. In the latter eventuality, then asking whether some payment has been received in return for the image seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask I think. I really can't see why you, or anyone else for that matter, would even bother to disagree with this? None of the above is remotely related to some sinister attempt on my part to conceal the truth or even question the case for publishing the image in the first place. Indeed, you appear to be seeing conspiracies here where none exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 I see the Turkish flight crew weren't standing around chanting allahu akbar at the Mali hotel tonight, no they were running for their ****ing lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 I see the Turkish flight crew weren't standing around chanting allahu akbar at the Mali hotel tonight, no they were running for their ****ing lives. Mustafa Özsarı. "Let it be clear: In Turkey (especially at football matches) a one minute silence is always used to chant for those who died in terrorist attacks. And what they are chanting is this “Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez”. Translation: “Martyrs, they do not die (they are immortal), homeland (land, our land) is indivisible.” That is a habit from our past with the terrorist organisation PKK. More than 30,000 of our citizens died over the past 30 years by the PKK (including babies, women, children, teachers, officers, doctors, students and soldiers). In any event, after PKK terrorists kill someone in Turkey, people chant this. Below is a proof from one Turkish Premier League match: Same slogan “Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez”. And also, they booed the terrorist, not the victims. Any victims of terrorism are accepted as martyrs in Turkish culture. There is no disrespect to them, there has not been, there will not be." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Mustafa Özsarı. "Let it be clear: In Turkey (especially at football matches) a one minute silence is always used to chant for those who died in terrorist attacks. And what they are chanting is this “Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez”. Translation: “Martyrs, they do not die (they are immortal), homeland (land, our land) is indivisible.” That is a habit from our past with the terrorist organisation PKK. More than 30,000 of our citizens died over the past 30 years by the PKK (including babies, women, children, teachers, officers, doctors, students and soldiers). In any event, after PKK terrorists kill someone in Turkey, people chant this. Below is a proof from one Turkish Premier League match: Same slogan “Şehitler ölmez, vatan bölünmez”. And also, they booed the terrorist, not the victims. Any victims of terrorism are accepted as martyrs in Turkish culture. There is no disrespect to them, there has not been, there will not be." Are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Just another day in Western Europe in 2015. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0TA03H20151121 Aren't we blessed to have imported Islam to our doorsteps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 (edited) Just another day in Western Europe in 2015. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0TA03H20151121 Aren't we blessed to have imported Islam to our doorsteps. Don't jump to conclusions. It is just as likely to be those pesky Christians. Nothing to chose between the violence In these religions. Edited 21 November, 2015 by whelk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Just another day in Western Europe in 2015. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0TA03H20151121 Aren't we blessed to have imported Islam to our doorsteps. don't forget, in the year 1137, christians were MENTAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 don't forget, in the year 1137, christians were MENTAL. And the 'No.9' told us on here there haven't even been many attacks, so I don't know what everyone is worrying about to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 In fairness all these people want to do is get round the table and negotiate with us and we're refusing to so really it's definitely all our fault. After all, the Queen had tea with the IRA the day after the Brighton bomb or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Just another day in Western Europe in 2015. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0TA03H20151121 Aren't we blessed to have imported Islam to our doorsteps. Do you actually know any Muslims ? Or do you have Muslim neighbours ? Do you run and hide when you see a woman in a burqa walking down the street ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Do you actually know any Muslims ? Or do you have Muslim neighbours ? Do you run and hide when you see a woman in a burqa walking down the street ? What does that have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 What does that have to do with anything? "Aren't we blessed to have imported Islam to our doorsteps". @SourMash post#812 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 "Aren't we blessed to have imported Islam to our doorsteps". @SourMash post#812 I'm still not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 21 November, 2015 don't forget, in the year 1137, christians were MENTAL. Yeah, that year was special. But it is okay because Christians are all peaceful hippies now and wouldn't hurt a fly. Although there seem to be daily murders and rapes carried out by Christians but lets ignore them because we are cool and those nasty Islam people are evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Maybe. We should all become Jains No god no idols. Etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 But the record shows that I have at no stage questioned the authenticity of the image. So the thinking behind the highlighted passage is something of a mystery to me. I see that you have chosen to use feigned ignorance as a shield against criticism. Very well. You knew that you couldn't openly question the authenticity of the images, it is a photo taken in the aftermath after all. So instead you make grubby accusations without any basis, hoping to taint it, as when you said: "I do wonder however just how those pictures became such public property? If some official gave them to the media and some money changed hands ... well then I would hope that most on here would agree that this would be distasteful - to put it mildly". This after claiming that no-one needed to see the photo. Good of you to decide for everyone that it was unnecessary and off-limits. "Others may feel that publishing/broadcasting images of the Paris massacre victims (for example) is both offensive and unnecessary - afterall we do very well know what happened without having to see it. " Attempted stealth censorship and denigration at its, well, not finest - but certainly its most sloppy and self satisfied. Again you appear to busy fabricating an enormous mountain from nothing more than the most diminutive of molehills. I was simply wondering how the horrific image - an image that you chose to post on here - made its way into the public domain. Now if you know the answer to this question then I'm sure many on here would be most interested to see it. An Image that i CHOSE to post on here? How very dare I. By the way, you can just say "mountain from a molehill", but i know your posts are thin on actual content. It's strange, your idle thoughts look just like the attempts of a derogatory mind making grubby insinuations about materials which show the full scale of an atrocity that you've spent the thread equivocating about, in which anybody viewing it might then unconsciously associate it with being a form of paid propaganda, rather than a visual witness statement. Again, a well known and hollow rhetorical device. Ironically the painting you that you chose to post to depict Christian violence, Le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy by François Dubois, was created by a man who was not verified as being present for the event, but did lose a relative to it. But I guess important issues like neutrality and veracity of information don't matter as much when you post images, as much as half baked aspersions do when others who disagree with you, post material that clashes with your viewpoint. Until that answer becomes clear, then for the time being I can only presume that either one of the terrorists uploaded the image to the Internet before they were killed, or (much more likely I think) the image has been obtained somehow from a official French source. In the latter eventuality, then asking whether some payment has been received in return for the image seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask I think. How about a police officer who shared the image? Or does that description sit ill with you, as your language puts the source in the realm of bureaucracy and paid informers and/or terrorists. In fact, the image is a snap shot on a mobile phone, not any high resolution crime scene photo, so your allegation doesn't hold water on that front, and the image has since been shared freely across social media and websites, before being picked up and censored by the mainstream media, so monetization seems unlikely if not impossible. You are looking to establish unreasonable points based on a flawed presumption. I really can't see why you, or anyone else for that matter, would even bother to disagree with this? None of the above is remotely related to some sinister attempt on my part to conceal the truth or even question the case for publishing the image in the first place. Indeed, you appear to be seeing conspiracies here where none exist. You have spent a thread based around the reporting of, political and personal response to, and proposed reaction to a carefully orchestrated and pitiless massacre, carried out by a De Facto state that enforces Islamofacist ideals, by posting images of Nazi apparel and 16th century paintings when posters were discussing modern Christian equivalents to ISIS, desperately trying to lessen the debate by sniping at various posters and trying to jam other threads into this one, derailing the topic by likening disreputable and unsubstantiated hypotheticals to points of order that must be addressed, and trying to detract from the main discussion by creating side issues where there are none. Despite this, you somehow seek to present up as the great iconoclast, or worldly (or should that be wordy?) arbiter of virtue. Which, given your actual contribution to the conversation thus far, is staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Yeah, that year was special. But it is okay because Christians are all peaceful hippies now and wouldn't hurt a fly. Although there seem to be daily murders and rapes carried out by Christians but lets ignore them because we are cool and those nasty Islam people are evil. You really don't know what a Christian is do you? I know you probably get off on being defiant but seriously come across as incredibly stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 I see that you have chosen to use feigned ignorance as a shield against criticism. Very well. You knew that you couldn't openly question the authenticity of the images, it is a photo taken in the aftermath after all. So instead you make grubby accusations without any basis, hoping to taint it, as when you said: "I do wonder however just how those pictures became such public property? If some official gave them to the media and some money changed hands ... well then I would hope that most on here would agree that this would be distasteful - to put it mildly". This after claiming that no-one needed to see the photo. Good of you to decide for everyone that it was unnecessary and off-limits. "Others may feel that publishing/broadcasting images of the Paris massacre victims (for example) is both offensive and unnecessary - afterall we do very well know what happened without having to see it. " Attempted stealth censorship and denigration at its, well, not finest - but certainly its most sloppy and self satisfied. An Image that i CHOSE to post on here? How very dare I. By the way, you can just say "mountain from a molehill", but i know your posts are thin on actual content. It's strange, your idle thoughts look just like the attempts of a derogatory mind making grubby insinuations about materials which show the full scale of an atrocity that you've spent the thread equivocating about, in which anybody viewing it might then unconsciously associate it with being a form of paid propaganda, rather than a visual witness statement. Again, a well known and hollow rhetorical device. Ironically the painting you that you chose to post to depict Christian violence, Le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy by François Dubois, was created by a man who was not verified as being present for the event, but did lose a relative to it. But I guess important issues like neutrality and veracity of information don't matter as much when you post images, as much as half baked aspersions do when others who disagree with you, post material that clashes with your viewpoint. How about a police officer who shared the image? Or does that description sit ill with you, as your language puts the source in the realm of bureaucracy and paid informers and/or terrorists. In fact, the image is a snap shot on a mobile phone, not any high resolution crime scene photo, so your allegation doesn't hold water on that front, and the image has since been shared freely across social media and websites, before being picked up and censored by the mainstream media, so monetization seems unlikely if not impossible. You are looking to establish unreasonable points based on a flawed presumption. You have spent a thread based around the reporting of, political and personal response to, and proposed reaction to a carefully orchestrated and pitiless massacre, carried out by a De Facto state that enforces Islamofacist ideals, by posting images of Nazi apparel and 16th century paintings when posters were discussing modern Christian equivalents to ISIS, desperately trying to lessen the debate by sniping at various posters and trying to jam other threads into this one, derailing the topic by likening disreputable and unsubstantiated hypotheticals to points of order that must be addressed, and trying to detract from the main discussion by creating side issues where there are none. Despite this, you somehow seek to present up as the great iconoclast, or worldly (or should that be wordy?) arbiter of virtue. Which, given your actual contribution to the conversation thus far, is staggering. Great post. Nice to see Chapel End Charlie's snivelling point-scoring being taken apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Great post. Nice to see Chapel End Charlie's snivelling point-scoring being taken apart. My dear CB - the post you admire so is quite absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 21 November, 2015 You really don't know what a Christian is do you? I know you probably get off on being defiant but seriously come across as incredibly stupid To be honest Whelk I think I probably do. I also know that people can carry out the most despicable deeds no matter what race, religion or creed. Batman keeps going on about the Crusades as if that was the only time that "Christians" have carried out atrocities. We all know that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Do you think anyone in this country who is not Muslim, Hindu or other is a Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Do you think anyone in this country who is not Muslim, Hindu or other is a Christian? Who on earth would think such a silly thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Who on earth would think such a silly thing? SOG has lots of silly thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Do you think anyone in this country who is not Muslim, Hindu or other is a Christian? I really don't know what the breakdown of religious following is but as we seem to be targeting Islam which is the second biggest religion it seems to make sense to use as a comparison Christianity which is the biggest religion on the planet. Just a silly little conceit on my part, granted. Would you agree that the colour of a man's skin or his religious bent makes little difference to whether he is capable of committing a crime or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Religion bent has a lot to do with it clearly. You seem to want to ignore this in your insistence on wanting to seem so tolerant. Do you think Hitler was a Christian btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Religion bent has a lot to do with it clearly. You seem to want to ignore this in your insistence on wanting to seem so tolerant. History shows us that no single race, religion or political creed holds some implausible monopoly on Human folly my friend. Indeed, I sometimes think that our capability for folly and violence is the one thing that unites Humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Religion bent has a lot to do with it clearly. You seem to want to ignore this in your insistence on wanting to seem so tolerant. Do you think Hitler was a Christian btw? Yes apparently he was. And what is wrong with being tolerant towards people who do you no harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 To be honest Whelk I think I probably do. I also know that people can carry out the most despicable deeds no matter what race, religion or creed. Batman keeps going on about the Crusades as if that was the only time that "Christians" have carried out atrocities. We all know that is not the case. When was the last time they carried out terror attacks in the name of Christianity on such a scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 To be honest Whelk I think I probably do. I also know that people can carry out the most despicable deeds no matter what race, religion or creed. Batman keeps going on about the Crusades as if that was the only time that "Christians" have carried out atrocities. We all know that is not the case. What are the "Christian" atrocities you are thinking of? And let's be clear they will need to be unequivocally linked to the religion in the same way that Paris, 9/11, 7/7 and similar very clearly and unequivocally are. Also, you've got the last 100 years to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 My dear CB - the post you admire so is quite absurd. It's a perfect deconstruction of your post. It highlights your pomposity and how your posts read nicely but are in reality overly verbose and light on any meaningful contributions. It was great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 It's a perfect deconstruction of your post. It highlights your pomposity and how your posts read nicely but are in reality overly verbose and light on any meaningful contributions. It was great. It is nothing of the sort! It is in fact a quite absurd overreaction to my simply inquiry into how the horrific image in question came into the public domain. I note you didn't object to my post at the time, so I wonder why you have apparently changed your mind now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 It is nothing of the sort! It is in fact a quite absurd overreaction to my simply inquiry into how the horrific image in question came into the public domain. I note you didn't object to my post at the time, so I wonder why you have apparently changed your mind now? To be honest you've worn me down with it all. It seemed pointless to tackle another one of your posts so I'm glad someone else did it (and much better than I could have done.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 It's a perfect deconstruction of your post. It highlights your pomposity and how your posts read nicely but are in reality overly verbose and light on any meaningful contributions. It was great. Well if that form of OTT verbiage impresses you so, then I can only assume you are of the 'easily impressed' type. But as you now seemingly feel that there is something intrinsically 'out of order' in my asking a simple question about that image then please expand on why you hold this opinion - which I will point out again you did not (uncharacteristically) object to at the time. I must say that I await your reply with some interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 It is nothing of the sort! It is in fact a quite absurd overreaction to my simply inquiry into how the horrific image in question came into the public domain. I note you didn't object to my post at the time, so I wonder why you have apparently changed your mind now? That's a nice bit of soggy logic there. We didn't openly object to your post on the thread therefore we must have agreed with it when you posted it? No wonder you two get on so well together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 21 November, 2015 (edited) That's a nice bit of soggy logic there. We didn't openly object to your post on the thread therefore we must have agreed with it when you posted it? No wonder you two get on so well together. Not so. CEC has had a pop or two at me in the past. Fair enough, I don't mind a bit of a debate. It is the childish name calling I can do without. And who is this "we" you talk of? Edited 21 November, 2015 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 That's a nice bit of soggy logic there. We didn't openly object to your post on the thread therefore we must have agreed with it when you posted it? No wonder you two get on so well together. It seems to me that the reason you lot didn't object at the time is because there was nothing in my post worth objecting to. If you really must criticise then you would better have opined that my post was too bland, rather than disingenuous. But you too are invited to explain what exactly is so wrong in asking how that image made its way into the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Billy Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 How about us all agreeing that in this modern day any atrocity be it religious based or not should be condemned and dealt with. For whats its worth, I'm not even sure Isis give one jot about their religious beliefs, I think they are now just hell bent on unleashing their evils on the Western society probably because the West has in their mind poked their nose where it is not wanted. Perhaps we should have left the likes of Assad, Saddam, Taliban etc to carry on wiping out their own people and threatening world peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Now that the UN security council has, after Paris, found a preciously rare occasion to unite on a resolution to tackle IS, the scene is set for Jeremy Corbyn to show some leadership and back military action against IS in Syria. He was the one, after all, who laid down the condition that any action must have the backing of the UN. Of course, he didn't expect for a minute that such authorisation would ever happen, given the routine vetoes by China and Russia. He no doubt expected a permanent get-out clause in justifying his inarticulate pacifism. But the murder of a Chinese hostage in Syria and the downing of the Russian airliner over Sinai, and then Paris, have changed all that. So let's see how the conversation goes with his closest advisors: John ("the IRA won the peace") McDonnell, Seumas ("Joe Stalin was my hero") Milne and Andrew (currently suspended form the Labour Party) Fisher. I expect a fine outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Evil as they are its important to not overstate the size or power of IS. The Iraq war cost 250,000 + dead, the Syrian war 250,000 also with around 75,000 dying in the past 12 months. IS are estimated to be responsible for 15,000 of that. Its a bit more complicated than loading up the planes and bombing the **** out of Raqqa, destroying empty bases for PR purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 Evil as they are its important to not overstate the size or power of IS. The Iraq war cost 250,000 + dead, the Syrian war 250,000 also with around 75,000 dying in the past 12 months. IS are estimated to be responsible for 15,000 of that. Its a bit more complicated than loading up the planes and bombing the **** out of Raqqa, destroying empty bases for PR purposes. Exactly they are a propaganda piece for the western media /government etc to use to sell papers, justify wars and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 (edited) How about us all agreeing that in this modern day any atrocity be it religious based or not should be condemned and dealt with. For whats its worth, I'm not even sure Isis give one jot about their religious beliefs, I think they are now just hell bent on unleashing their evils on the Western society probably because the West has in their mind poked their nose where it is not wanted. Perhaps we should have left the likes of Assad, Saddam, Taliban etc to carry on wiping out their own people and threatening world peace. You mean the countries we armed? Edited 21 November, 2015 by Jonnyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 (edited) What are the "Christian" atrocities you are thinking of? And let's be clear they will need to be unequivocally linked to the religion in the same way that Paris, 9/11, 7/7 and similar very clearly and unequivocally are. Also, you've got the last 100 years to work with. Anders Breivik ? The Lord's Resistance Army ? Edited 21 November, 2015 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 (edited) Anders Breivik ? The Lord's Resistance Army ? That Jim Jones too was a very religious man I understand ... Edited 21 November, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE 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