Yojoe36 Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 So say for instance one of these extremists 'pisses' on a grave of a soldier killed in Afghanistan. Did that soldier fight for the freedom of that extremist? No, because the extremist was probably born and bred in England. Has a British passport, and shops in Debenhams. Our soldiers are in Afgan to help "reform" (whatever you want to call it) the country.
I am Rod Hull Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 No, because the extremist was probably born and bred in England. Has a British passport, and shops in Debenhams. Our soldiers are in Afgan to help "reform" (whatever you want to call it) the country. Not to "protect" (making sure no one else gets their hands on it) the oil pipe lines then ?
Yojoe36 Posted 8 November 2011 Posted 8 November 2011 Not to protect the oil pipe lines then ? Oil no longer exists
The Year Of The Fox Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 Shame the police won't use rubber/real bullets on these horrible cnuts
Zingari Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 . I don't really give a fvck. ok , how much do you charge then ?
MPH Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 We should organize a protest, in Afghanistan ( preferably Taliban country) Celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden.On his birthday. See how well thats receieved. Sure there is a thing called freedom of speech but to me this isn't just about who is right and who is wrong its about sensitivity and respect and timing.
Finnegan Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 If twats like the Mail didn't print stories about them then no one would notice the insignificant cvnts. Exactly. The Mail and the Sun are pretty much fuelling these organizations more than the few pissants that actually organize them.
Finnegan Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 It's not the job of any paper to decide what we're not allowed to know. There's a huge difference between a paper being censored or refusing to acknowledge an incident happened and a paper simply declining to waste tabloid inches on some insignificant little shitpiece. I had a cheesey-bean potato for lunch today and I was off Monday and Tuesday with manflu, that didn't make the Guardian did it?
Webbo Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 There's a huge difference between a paper being censored or refusing to acknowledge an incident happened and a paper simply declining to waste tabloid inches on some insignificant little shitpiece. I had a cheesey-bean potato for lunch today and I was off Monday and Tuesday with manflu, that didn't make the Guardian did it? If nobody reported the EDL would they go away?Who'd care about the troops in Afghanistan if they killed civilians by accident if it wasn't reported in the Guardian?What about the MP's expensives? We can all watch the news and read the papers and make our own minds up as to whether it's important, we don't need/deserve someone to decide on our behalf.
21st Century Fox Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 If nobody reported the EDL would they go away?Who'd care about the troops in Afghanistan if they killed civilians by accident if it wasn't reported in the Guardian?What about the MP's expensives? We can all watch the news and read the papers and make our own minds up as to whether it's important, we don't need/deserve someone to decide on our behalf. Certain newspapers pander to peoples fears because they know it'll sell more papers, if they actually reported the news without the rhetoric it wouldn't be as bad. I agree that they shouldn't cherry pick what we see but they should show caution in the way they report it, but then they wouldn't make as much money.
Webbo Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 Certain newspapers pander to peoples fears because they know it'll sell more papers, if they actually reported the news without the rhetoric it wouldn't be as bad. I agree that they shouldn't cherry pick what we see but they should show caution in the way they report it, but then they wouldn't make as much money. All newspapers pander to the prejudices of their readers.
21st Century Fox Posted 9 November 2011 Posted 9 November 2011 All newspapers pander to the prejudices of their readers. Some incite certain strong 'emotions' more than others.
Finnegan Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 If nobody reported the EDL would they go away?Who'd care about the troops in Afghanistan if they killed civilians by accident if it wasn't reported in the Guardian?What about the MP's expensives? We can all watch the news and read the papers and make our own minds up as to whether it's important, we don't need/deserve someone to decide on our behalf. Sorry, Webbo, but this is one of the silliest stances you've taken in a long time. You usually have a very, very blunt logic that can sometimes make it a little difficult to argue with you but now you're just being simple. News outlets make judgements about what is news-worthy every, single day. A newspaper can't possibly contain every event that ever happens, all of which may be relevant or of interest to someone but they make that judgement. They don't provide a public, impartial service that it's mandatory to pay for - they own those pages and it's entirely their call what goes in them. It's quite obvious to see that soldiers killing civilians is a newsworthy event that's going to be of importance to most people, you're talking about the loss of innocent life in a conflict some will dispute we should even be in. By contrast, a few nutjobs screeching in protest are literally just that. Hundreds and thousands of protests go on around the globe on a daily basis but they don't make out media outlets, do they? This collection of simpletons evoke an emotive response that draws people in, captures their interest and sells their papers. It's cynical exploitation and it's damaging to the public view of Islam and the Muslim community, giving air to opinions that otherwise nobody would hear due to the miniscule size of their organization (by contrast, the EDL are somewhat impossible to avoid due to, yknow, fuckoffgreatbig rallies in our cities.)
Zingari Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 Surely this sort of demo is newsworthy if it happens at such a sensitive gathering though. In the same way someone flashing their genitals in beamont leys shopping centre may not be worthy of national news coverage , but someone doing it at the state opening of parliament would
Darkon84 Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 The group planning to carry out 'Hell for Heroes', 'Muslims Against Crusades', has been banned from doing so, and membership of the group has become a criminal offence... BBC News Link Muslims Against Crusades banned from midnight Home Secretary Theresa May is banning Muslims Against Crusades, a group planning an anti-Armistice Day protest. The organisation had planned to repeat a demonstration seen last year, when members burned poppies near to London's Albert Hall. Mrs May's order, which comes into force at midnight, makes membership or support of the group a criminal offence. The organisation is closely linked to a host of other previously-banned groups. Mrs May said she was satisfied that Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) was "simply another name for an organisation already proscribed under a number of names". "The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name," she said. Muslims Against Crusades is the latest incarnation of the organisation originally set up by extremist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, who fled the UK six years ago. Its previous incarnations, Al Ghurabaa, The Saved Sect, Al Muhajiroun and Islam4UK are all proscribed groups. Anjem Choudary, the leading public figure in the organisation, accused the government of attempting to cover up the truth. The home secretary said MAC was "simply another name" for an already-banned group But he said he no longer knew whether the planned "Hell for Heroes" demonstration would happen. Anyone who joined the demonstration as a member or supporter of MAC could face up to 10 years in jail. "I think it is an abject failure of democracy and it is a victory for Sharia Muslims," said Mr Choudary. In a statement on its website, the organisation had promised a "lack of silence" by British Muslims on Armistice Day. It said: "We will be leading the campaign to highlight the atrocities which have been committed and continue to be committed against the Muslims, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, or in the brutal torture concentration camps of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib by the US, UK and their allies." Member fined During its 2010 protest, members of the group burned poppies and chanted "British soldiers, burn in hell". One of the group was found guilty of public order offences and fined. The judge in the case described the actions as a "calculated and deliberate insult to the dead and those who mourn or remember them". Julie Siddiqui of the Islamic Society of Britain had been organising a counter-demonstration for Friday. She said: "In one sweep, Muslims Against Crusades display an unspeakable disregard for the feelings and common bond of our countrymen and women, a contempt and rejection of our hard-earned democracy and its institutions, a disdain for the majority of British Muslims - who do not share their views - and a violation of the example of the Prophet Muhammad." Well....I wasnt expecting that kind of response from the government.
Finnegan Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 Great, so now they're martyrs to censorship. Top work, DC.
nuttytimmy Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 Great, so now they're martyrs to censorship. Top work, DC. So they've banned this, what about the hundreds of other offensive and/or dangerous groups that exist? Once you set-out your stance...
Webbo Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 Sorry, Webbo, but this is one of the silliest stances you've taken in a long time. You usually have a very, very blunt logic that can sometimes make it a little difficult to argue with you but now you're just being simple. News outlets make judgements about what is news-worthy every, single day. A newspaper can't possibly contain every event that ever happens, all of which may be relevant or of interest to someone but they make that judgement. They don't provide a public, impartial service that it's mandatory to pay for - they own those pages and it's entirely their call what goes in them. It's quite obvious to see that soldiers killing civilians is a newsworthy event that's going to be of importance to most people, you're talking about the loss of innocent life in a conflict some will dispute we should even be in. By contrast, a few nutjobs screeching in protest are literally just that. Hundreds and thousands of protests go on around the globe on a daily basis but they don't make out media outlets, do they? This collection of simpletons evoke an emotive response that draws people in, captures their interest and sells their papers. It's cynical exploitation and it's damaging to the public view of Islam and the Muslim community, giving air to opinions that otherwise nobody would hear due to the miniscule size of their organization (by contrast, the EDL are somewhat impossible to avoid due to, yknow, fuckoffgreatbig rallies in our cities.) My point is, who decides what is newsworthy?The killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan doesn't directly effect anyone in this country. If it wasn't reported nobody including those muslamic (sic)nutjobs would know and nobody would care. When you start deciding what news is safe to hear , when the powers that be decide what we have a right to be offended by,you're on a slippery slope.
Webbo Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 The group planning to carry out 'Hell for Heroes', 'Muslims Against Crusades', has been banned from doing so, and membership of the group has become a criminal offence... BBC News Link Well done BBC, thanks for spreading the hate. Well....I wasnt expecting that kind of response from the government. "The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name," she said. Just remind me who was in govt in 2006.
accessory Posted 10 November 2011 Posted 10 November 2011 . If it wasn't reported nobody including those muslamic (sic)nutjobs would know and nobody would care. Their friends and relatives would be pretty miffed though.. When you start deciding what news is safe to hear , when the powers that be decide what we have a right to be offended by, you're on a slippery slope. Contradiction much?
Webbo Posted 11 November 2011 Posted 11 November 2011 Their friends and relatives would be pretty miffed though.. Contradiction much? What are you on about?
I am Rod Hull Posted 11 November 2011 Posted 11 November 2011 What are you on about? I dont think he knows...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.