I don't mean the French (that would be wacist).

To all those who object to Charlie Hebdo continuing to publish Muhammed cartoons in the face of Islamic terrorism - instead of simply blaming the cartoonists for their own demise, how about you outline your suggested alternative program of appeasement and what you think the outcome would be if we were stupid enough to follow? How far would you go to appease the terrorists? What would you be willing to give up? And why have I received no answer to this question despite asking it of several of you dozens of times already?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

I don't mean the French (that would be wacist). To all those who object to Charlie Hebdo continuing to publish Muhammed cartoons in the face of Islamic terrorism - instead of simply blaming the cartoonists for their own demise, how about you outline your suggested alternative program of appeasement and what you think the outcome would be if we were stupid enough to follow? How far would you go to appease the terrorists? What would you be willing to give up? And why have I received no answer to this question despite asking it of several of you dozens of times already?

Freediver and its ilk has created a culture of hostility to Islam and its adherents without regard to the fact that 99.999% of adherents to Islam are decent and peaceful people.

The insults, actions and words of Freediver and its ilk only serves to incite hostility towards all Muslims and therefore provoke reaction and hostility. This produces the opposite effect of what Freediver purports to desire.

Oh hi svengali. Fancy seeing you here. While I've got your attention, how far would you go in trying to appease terrorists? Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression?

Svengali seems to be labouring under the delusion that multicultural western liberal democracies ought to be restructured so as not to cause any offence to anybody, but particularly those of the Islamic persuasion.

We don't adhere to those ideas pal. You've come to the wrong shop.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:33pm:

Oh hi svengali. Fancy seeing you here. While I've got your attention, how far would you go in trying to appease terrorists? Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression?

I don't support incitement. The magazine appears to have decided to focus its existence on ridiculing muslims.

Svengali wrote = Freediver and its ilk has created a culture of hostility to Islam and its adherents without regard to the fact that 99.999% of adherents to Islam are decent and peaceful people.


You need to read your Koran a little more carefully.

Svengali is an apologist for the Muslims. They have come to this Country and been offered the best there is, a chance to make a good future free of the danger of the latest Muslim cult like ISIS; to come knocking in the middle of the might with murder on their mind.

And how does this Community repay us who have allowed them  into our midst?  They spawn a cult like ISIS with followers who spew death as a thank you for all that we have done for them.

And how many of the stalwart Muslim Community have come forward and provided Intelligence on those among their ranks who ferment this poison?

Seems similar to Nazi Germany, don't give up your brother even if he happens to be a screaming raging ISIS follower who wants to reap violence on the Community that has provided so much for his brothers.

I am f.....g sick and tired of hearing how great the Muslim Community is, when they stay tight lipped about the fanatics amongst them.

Don't worry though the Police already know who 98% of them are.

Muslims taking on the extremists.

---

A voice in the wilderness, still...encouraging :)

Svengali wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:33pm: Oh hi svengali. Fancy seeing you here. While I've got your attention, how far would you go in trying to appease terrorists? Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression? I don't support incitement. The magazine appears to have decided to focus its existence on ridiculing muslims.

So Charlie Hebdo is guilty of inciting violence?

I like Nazeem.

red baron wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:58pm:

Svengali is an apologist for the Muslims. They have come to this Country and been offered the best there is, a chance to make a good future free of the danger of the latest Muslim cult like ISIS; to come knocking in the middle of the might with murder on their mind. And how does this Community repay us who have allowed them  into our midst?  They spawn a cult like ISIS with followers who spew death as a thank you for all that we have done for them. And how many of the stalwart Muslim Community have come forward and provided Intelligence on those among their ranks who ferment this poison? Seems similar to Nazi Germany, don't give up your brother even if he happens to be a screaming raging ISIS follower who wants to reap violence on the Community that has provided so much for his brothers. I am f.....g sick and tired of hearing how great the Muslim Community is, when they stay tight lipped about the fanatics amongst them. Don't worry though the Police already know who 98% of them are.

How many of these same 'disenfranchised' Muslims would be living in a good house with air con, and enjoying good education opportunities and at least equal job opportunities not even including affirmative action, healthcare that keeps them going along well and cheaply, drive a nice car, have a business that returns good money and many tax dodges etc, be able to enter politics, enjoy good and readily available food and so forth - if they were still living in 'the old country'?

Many such would be dead by age four or so......

Time for a little farken gratitude for those who built this country, often without all the easy privileges this lot get handed to them if they just want to accept them and not piss all over them.....

(the above statement written and spoken by the non-Party affiliated Grappler himself, and no personal inference is imputed or handed free to any ghett out there.. you get to EARN your inference of being an asshole)....

Svengali wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility.

So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it?

Any suggestions on how?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

I like Nazeem.

But he's brown. And a Muslim. And makes a living poking fun at people like you. No offence.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it? Any suggestions on how?

No. What you are doing is incitement. You are inciting the lowest level of society into following your lead and indiscriminately being hostile to all Muslims.

Just demonstrates the shallowness of your morals.

Quote:

how about you outline your suggested alternative program of appeasement and what you think the outcome would be if we were stupid enough to follow?

I'm not taking you seriously, and I am stuffed if I know why anyone bothers in dialogue with you.  You have already decided, like the best of bigots, that anything anyone suggests would only be followed by stupid people.

Bugger orf, troll.

Svengali wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it? Any suggestions on how? No. What you are doing is incitement. You are inciting the lowest level of society into following your lead and indiscriminately being hostile to all Muslims. Just demonstrates the shallowness of your morals.

Should my 'incitement' be censored?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:02pm:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it? Any suggestions on how? No. What you are doing is incitement. You are inciting the lowest level of society into following your lead and indiscriminately being hostile to all Muslims. Just demonstrates the shallowness of your morals. Should my 'incitement' be censored?

I believe you should turn yourself in to your local police station and confess your extremist views and incitement attempts.

many blessings and here is the minority stooge

and freemasonic magician young blood nazeem hussain

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/extremo.png

this freemasonic apologist is forgiven

namaste

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:33pm: Oh hi svengali. Fancy seeing you here. While I've got your attention, how far would you go in trying to appease terrorists? Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression? I don't support incitement. The magazine appears to have decided to focus its existence on ridiculing muslims. So Charlie Hebdo is guilty of inciting violence? I like Nazeem.

many blessings you like your bro mason nazeem ?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/Bush_Mason.jpg

is nazeem in the same order as you freediver ?

namaste

Svengali wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:02pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it? Any suggestions on how? No. What you are doing is incitement. You are inciting the lowest level of society into following your lead and indiscriminately being hostile to all Muslims. Just demonstrates the shallowness of your morals. Should my 'incitement' be censored? I believe you should turn yourself in to your local police station and confess your extremist views and incitement attempts.

Do you think Charlie Hebdo should be censored in order to appease the terrorists?

What other pre-appeasement strategies would you suggest to stop the Muslims scaring you into post-appeasement?

Cods accusing other people of being thick:


cods wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 10:12am: Quote: FREEDOM OF SPEECH      its under  threat...when in fact sensible people no that isnt true... That is your dumbest post so far cods. Every time I ask you to explain this crap you run away. fine dont read themn then   you never answer so why should anyone else.. and on top of that you are pig rude.. [quote]there is and never was  FREEDOM OF SPEECH... anywhere...only what the powers that be ALLOW... You don't recognise it because it was handed to you on a platter cods. You are lucky, but you do not realise it. why cant I call you a M)RON YOU STUPID ONE EYED LEFTY????....lets see if FREEDOM OF SPEECH WORKS ON FDS WEB?... [quote]if as has been said I wanted to show porn on this forum

Cods I have explained this to you at least a dozen times already. You are yet to even acknowledge the response. You just keep posting the same stupid thing over and over again. Not sure how to dumb it down any more for you. Which part are you having trouble comprehending?


Quote:

Religion descends to commit the greatest evils when it controls the state.

This is what cods wants.[/quote]


and death at least for others from other countries is what fd wants..


he doesnt mind OTHERS being killed for a cartoon for christ sake..

you are so =dumb I cant even be bothered anymore..

dont understand it.. TOUGH,.I cant help it if your THICK AS TWO SHORT PLANKS....

gees I like this FREEDOM OF SPEECH>
[/quote]

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 5:00pm:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:26pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:02pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it? Any suggestions on how? No. What you are doing is incitement. You are inciting the lowest level of society into following your lead and indiscriminately being hostile to all Muslims. Just demonstrates the shallowness of your morals. Should my 'incitement' be censored? I believe you should turn yourself in to your local police station and confess your extremist views and incitement attempts. Do you think Charlie Hebdo should be censored in order to appease the terrorists? What other pre-appeasement strategies would you suggest to stop the Muslims scaring you into post-appeasement?

I suggest sending Freediver to Syria with a sign disparaging the prophet Mohammed. I am willing to contribute to the ticket.

Freediver can then engage with those he wishes to change.

Quote:

Do you think Charlie Hebdo should be censored in order to appease the terrorists?

I'd put it another way.  Why must they stick their beak into something they could just ignore.  What is the trumping all and compelling need for them to ridicule, abuse, mock and pour scorn?

Freediver, do you believe that God impregnated  the virgin Mary while Jo was away busy with other erections, and Jesus Christ was the offspring?

http://freemasonrywatch.org/pics/gmhsd.gif

Dear Aussie. I want to appease terrorists. Which human right do you think I should give up first?


Aussie wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:05pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:03pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:49pm: Well maybe it's just me greg, but it sure seems many on the left are walking a pretty thin line trying to avoid condemning the fanatics for fear of upsetting the muslim world generally. The case in point here, how could gay & lesbian people have any respect for a religious faith which seems to condone such treatment? I have not seen one person on here have anything but condemnation for the terrorists. We are collectively on the same page. How could anyone not condemn cold blooded murder? We wholeheartedly condemn fanatics, terrorists, jihadists.....this is where the confusion lies.....just those, not Islam or Muslims. Yes we condemn them. But the real question is, how do we appease them? Right, pansi? How about not going out of out of way to piss them off with ridicule, abuse and incitement to hate them or hold them in scorn?  Or is your precious and nefarious and selective 'freeeeedom of speech' far more important?

Aussie! Aussie! He's our man! If he can't appease terrorists, no-one can!


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:10pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:05pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:03pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:49pm: Well maybe it's just me greg, but it sure seems many on the left are walking a pretty thin line trying to avoid condemning the fanatics for fear of upsetting the muslim world generally. The case in point here, how could gay & lesbian people have any respect for a religious faith which seems to condone such treatment? I have not seen one person on here have anything but condemnation for the terrorists. We are collectively on the same page. How could anyone not condemn cold blooded murder? We wholeheartedly condemn fanatics, terrorists, jihadists.....this is where the confusion lies.....just those, not Islam or Muslims. Yes we condemn them. But the real question is, how do we appease them? Right, pansi? How about not going out of out of way to piss them off with ridicule, abuse and incitement to hate them or hold them in scorn?  Or is your precious and nefarious and selective 'freeeeedom of speech' far more important? What Aussie said. If you want to deliberately p1ss them off, then find your own way to calm them down. Ask the past and present US presidents, they started it.

In a struggle between freedom of speech and religious sensitivities, cods goes straight for an objective source - the pope:


cods wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. poor old FD he is losing git... he is now like son of greg. who repeats repeats repeats and then he repeats it all over again.... heres you answer fd.. ev en the Pope is on our side.. MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Pope Francis said there are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it insults or ridicules someone's faith, in comments that the Vatican later said Friday did not mean justifying the attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Related Stories Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines on Thursday, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he said there were limits. By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasbarri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane. "If my good friend Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said half-jokingly, throwing a mock punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others so who were the BULLY BOYS FD?.... who provoked the angry death bees?>.

Quote:

In a struggle between freedom of speech and religious sensitivities, cods goes straight for an objective source - the pope:

What is the problem with quoting the Pope?  You use Charlie Hebdo as your shining light.  Why can't cods take the other point of view, or, as appears to be the case, is it that you regard yourself as correct no matter what, and be damned anyone who disagrees with you?

I am right. Cods is wrong, on many levels. I am happy to explain each one. In fact I have, several times already.

Tell me Aussie, how far do you think we should go to appease terrorists? What rights should we abandon for them, and what do you think the consequences of such spineless appeasement would be?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

I am right. Cods is wrong, on many levels. I am happy to explain each one. In fact I have, several times already. Tell me Aussie, how far do you think we should go to appease terrorists? What rights should we abandon for them, and what do you think the consequences of such spineless appeasement would be?

You may have missed what I said earlier.


Quote:

how about you outline your suggested alternative program of appeasement and what you think the outcome would be if we were stupid enough to follow?

I am not taking you seriously on the matter, ever.  You are trolling pure and simple.  You ask for ideas but announce in advance that anyone who took them up would be stupid.

Have you answered my question about God/Mary/Jo/Jesus yet?

Feel free to prove me wrong about the stupid thing Aussie. Blind us with your intellect. How far do you think we should go to appease terrorists? What rights should we abandon for them, and what do you think the consequences of such spineless appeasement would be?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

Feel free to prove me wrong about the stupid thing Aussie. Blind us with your intellect. How far do you think we should go to appease terrorists? What rights should we abandon for them, and what do you think the consequences of such spineless appeasement would be?

If you ever once even, truly engaged in a discussion with a view to not ramming your own preconceived views down my throat, I'd bother.

So, I won't.

You have already announced that anyone who offered an idea would only see that idea followed by stupid people.

You are the quintessential troll, no doubt about it.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

I don't mean the French (that would be wacist). To all those who object to Charlie Hebdo continuing to publish Muhammed cartoons in the face of Islamic terrorism - instead of simply blaming the cartoonists for their own demise, how about you outline your suggested alternative program

they could always publish them on Ozpolitic :D :D

Quote:

If you ever once even, truly engaged in a discussion with a view to not ramming your own preconceived views down my throat, I'd bother. So, I won't.

Fine. Wunaway. Then come back. Then wunaway again.


Quote:

You have already announced that anyone who offered an idea would only see that idea followed by stupid people.

I guess I have you corned then Aussie. Nothing to do but wunaway.

I guess you make the mistake of giving youself 10/10 when marking your own homework.

Tell me about God/Mary/Joesph/Jesus.

Welcome back Aussie. We missed you.

What you try to pass off as some magic ability to censor you is merely a mirror being held up to your words. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Welcome back Aussie. We missed you. What you try to pass off as some magic ability to censor you is merely a mirror being held up to your words. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.

Where did I say it was.  Where did you say that Charlie Hebdo is free from critisism/reaction (even physical) to stupid things it says.

Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Muhammed should be legally protected, with the full force of the law. Their right to go about their business without being assaulted for the views they express, or how they express them, or any other reason, should be legally protected with the full force of the law.

Do you agree Aussie?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Muhammed should be legally protected, with the full force of the law. Their right to go about their business without being assaulted for the views they express, or how they express them, or any other reason, should be legally protected with the full force of the law. Do you agree Aussie?

You have left a thousand areas of weazel room in that question, so you'll need to tidy up a great deal. What do you mean by the 'full force of the law?'  What do you mean by 'their business?'  What do you mean by 'mock?'  What do you mean by 'Muhammad?'  What do you mean by 'legally protected?'  Do you mean the full force of the same law which restricts mocking the holocaust, for example ~ on just one point.


Oh, and by the way, welcome back freediver, we missed you.

How far do you think we should go in appeasing terrorists Aussie?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

How far do you think we should go in appeasing terrorists Aussie?

Welcome back, freediver, we missed you.  I have answered that twice now.

i see you're ignoring my suggestion of posting the images on ozpolitic FD ... your not a cheese eating surrender monkey are you?

John, check the website home page.

Aussie, as far as I know you have merely suggested ways to appease terrorists. You have not indicated how far you would take your love for appeasement. Are you saying that freedom of speech is the only right you would abandon for them?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:05pm:

John, check the website home page.

you have a homepage?  :D :D :D

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:05pm:

John, check the website home page.

you've just jumped on the Charlie Hebo bandwagon like thousands of other news sites and web pages have in the last week ..

I meant why don't you show these photos all the time? Perhaps pay cartoonists to create new ones for you? you can make them as bigotted as you like

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 8:05pm:

John, check the website home page. Aussie, as far as I know you have merely suggested ways to appease terrorists. You have not indicated how far you would take your love for appeasement. Are you saying that freedom of speech is the only right you would abandon for them?

Welcome back freediver, we've missed you.

I have made no suggestions at all, and I won't for the reasons i have already explained twice.  In fact, it has nothing to do with appeasement at all.  That is your red herring.

Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Islam?

John, how about you make some up for me, for free.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Islam? John, how about you make some up for me, for free.

I'm not a cartoonists. I just find it amusing that you accuse others  of being cheese eating surrender monkeys for not posting offensive images, when in the 3 yrs I've been on here, you've never once done so yourself on your own forum.

Your not a surrender monkey are you FD?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:33pm: Oh hi svengali. Fancy seeing you here. While I've got your attention, how far would you go in trying to appease terrorists? Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression? I don't support incitement. The magazine appears to have decided to focus its existence on ridiculing muslims. So Charlie Hebdo is guilty of inciting violence?

What was it inciting when it published those cartoons, FD?

There is a point where ridicule can be taken too far.  Some people are most sensitive than others.   I think the Charlie Hebdo publishers failed to take into account the probable backlash against their efforts, particularly after a previous firebombing and the continuous death threats they were were receiving.   That they appear not to supplied even some basic security to their employees makes them IMO culpable in what occurred.

If you want to exercise your freedom of speech go ahead but don't be surprised when people take offence.  I'd suggest there were other ways to ridicule Islam and Mohammed than being simple toilet-wall graphitti.   ::)

Aussie wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 7:40pm: Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Muhammed should be legally protected, with the full force of the law. Their right to go about their business without being assaulted for the views they express, or how they express them, or any other reason, should be legally protected with the full force of the law. Do you agree Aussie? You have left a thousand areas of weazel room in that question, so you'll need to tidy up a great deal. What do you mean by the 'full force of the law?'  What do you mean by 'their business?'  What do you mean by 'mock?'  What do you mean by 'Muhammad?'  What do you mean by 'legally protected?'  Do you mean the full force of the same law which restricts mocking the holocaust, for example ~ on just one point.

Good propaganda, Comrade. Ask for multiple definitions to the point of continual obfuscation. Only then can we "progressives" continually mock and ridicule Christianity for world peace. War is peace.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Muhammed should be legally protected, with the full force of the law. Their right to go about their business without being assaulted for the views they express, or how they express them, or any other reason, should be legally protected with the full force of the law. Do you agree Aussie?

How they express their views....

Is this protection only afforded Charlie Hedbo?

How one "expresses their views" is kind of at the crux of the entire discussion, you see, it is about Freedom of Speech not Freedom of Expression - after all, the two shooters were only expressing their opinion opposed to Charlie Hedbo...

So, do you want Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression?

Which position would you surrender?

Svengali wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 5:00pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:26pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 3:02pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:45pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:27pm: So the terrorism is all our fault? Tell me svengali, how far would you go to appease the terrorists? The appropriate policy and principle is to avoid creating disaffected persons in the first place. You obviously have not known any Muslims and not ventured out of Australia other than short trips. You are just a stooge and dupe of more powerful forces of hostility. So you are more a fan of pre-appeasement? We must guess what will drive the Muslims into a mad rage and placate them before they do it? Any suggestions on how? No. What you are doing is incitement. You are inciting the lowest level of society into following your lead and indiscriminately being hostile to all Muslims. Just demonstrates the shallowness of your morals. Should my 'incitement' be censored? I believe you should turn yourself in to your local police station and confess your extremist views and incitement attempts. Do you think Charlie Hebdo should be censored in order to appease the terrorists? What other pre-appeasement strategies would you suggest to stop the Muslims scaring you into post-appeasement? I suggest sending Freediver to Syria with a sign disparaging the prophet Mohammed. I am willing to contribute to the ticket. Freediver can then engage with those he wishes to change.

You were going alright til you posted this crap.that thinking is no different to the " uncovered meat" speech by the Muslim cleric.   ie . If a crime is committed against Freediver or a girl in a bikini it is their fault because Muslim men can't control their impulses ( in this case to kill).  Very sad thought process

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:33pm: Oh hi svengali. Fancy seeing you here. While I've got your attention, how far would you go in trying to appease terrorists? Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to freedom of expression? I don't support incitement. The magazine appears to have decided to focus its existence on ridiculing muslims. So Charlie Hebdo is guilty of inciting violence? What was it inciting when it published those cartoons, FD? There is a point where ridicule can be taken too far.  Some people are most sensitive than others.   I think the Charlie Hebdo publishers failed to take into account the probable backlash against their efforts, particularly after a previous firebombing and the continuous death threats they were were receiving.   That they appear not to supplied even some basic security to their employees makes them IMO culpable in what occurred. If you want to exercise your freedom of speech go ahead but don't be surprised when people take offence.  I'd suggest there were other ways to ridicule Islam and Mohammed than being simple toilet-wall graphitti.   ::)

Again just rediculous thinking.
They are " culpable " because they should have known these criminals can't control themselves.
That's like saying if I cut someone off in traffic and he " road rages" on me and knocks my teeth out with a tyre lever, it is somehow MY FAULT because I should have known he was capable of such an act,

Epic fail my friend,
The guilt lies totally with terrorists, absolutely, undeniably 100%.  The cartoonists are heroes in my books,  absolute brave martyrs .  If you can't see that, there really is no hope for you.  Your logic is actually more twisted then the ISIS fighters who at least are committed to a logical course of action

Brian, Aussie, cods, pansi, svengali, Phem, you have all suggested in your own unique way that the cartoons should not have been published and that freedom of speech is not worth it if it upsets Muslims. Yet none of you will explain how far you would go to appease terrorists. Why is that? Are you scared to say?


John Smith wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 10:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to mock Islam? John, how about you make some up for me, for free. I'm not a cartoonists. I just find it amusing that you accuse others  of being cheese eating surrender monkeys for not posting offensive images, when in the 3 yrs I've been on here, you've never once done so yourself on your own forum. Your not a surrender monkey are you FD?

I actually made one up the other day. The one with Osama.


Quote:

What was it inciting when it published those cartoons, FD?

Svengali made the suggestion, ask him. I think it was another way of blaming Charlie Hebdo for the terrorist attacks.


Quote:

There is a point where ridicule can be taken too far.

There is a point where spineless appeasement can be taken to far. Do you know where that is Brian?


Quote:

Some people are most sensitive than others.

So the Muslims who murdered 20 people are really just sensitive new age guys whose feelings were hurt?


Quote:

I think the Charlie Hebdo publishers failed to take into account the probable backlash against their efforts, particularly after a previous firebombing and the continuous death threats they were were receiving.   That they appear not to supplied even some basic security to their employees makes them IMO culpable in what occurred.

Yes, they should have taken the hint from all the other occasions that Muslims murdered 20 people in response to cartoons. It is their fault for not having foresight as excellent as your hindsight.


Quote:

If you want to exercise your freedom of speech go ahead but don't be surprised when people take offence.  I'd suggest there were other ways to ridicule Islam and Mohammed than being simple toilet-wall graphitti.

There are Brian, but that is hardly the point, is it? There are all sorts of ways we could spinelessly appease terrorists. That does not mean we should, does it?


Quote:

How one "expresses their views" is kind of at the crux of the entire discussion, you see, it is about Freedom of Speech not Freedom of Expression - after all, the two shooters were only expressing their opinion opposed to Charlie Hedbo... So, do you want Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression? Which position would you surrender?

Freedom of expression is never interpreted by rational people to mean shooting people. It basically means the same thing as freedom of speech, but is broader to include non-speech expression such as artwork. I did suggest to you and Karnal that you start a new thread to discuss the definitions if you still don't understand what everyone is saying. I thought you were just obfuscating at the time, but apparently you really do not know, or are being deliberately thick. You should do a bit of catch-up before trying to discuss this with the adults, just to save everyone a bit of time.


Quote:

You were going alright til you posted this crap.that thinking is no different to the " uncovered meat" speech by the Muslim cleric.   ie . If a crime is committed against Freediver or a girl in a bikini it is their fault because Muslim men can't control their impulses ( in this case to kill).  Very sad thought process

You'd be surprised how many people here are trying to blame everyone but the gunmen for the attacks.


Quote:

Epic fail my friend, The guilt lies totally with terrorists, absolutely, undeniably 100%.  The cartoonists are heroes in my books,  absolute brave martyrs .  If you can't see that, there really is no hope for you.  Your logic is actually more twisted then the ISIS fighters who at least are committed to a logical course of action

This is the same person who argued that we have no right (or even ability) to criticise all the horrible things done in the name of Islam overseas, but who often has a go at the pope. He seems to think Islam needs special protection because people are criticising it. It is simply not possible that the criticism is deserved, and no amount of terrorist attacks will change his mind. They just make him more resolute. There more evil things done by Muslims in the name of Islam, the more culpable non-Muslims are.

I reckon it is well past time you defined freedom of speech, and where you reckon the limits are.

(Do not pigeon me as you have in that last post.  I have not expressed any view as yet, other than to point out what I regard as your hypocrisy.)

[quote author=freediver link=1421464923/50#50 date=1421531975]Brian, Aussie, cods, pansi, svengali, Phem, you have all suggested in your own unique way that the cartoons should not have been published and that freedom of speech is not worth it if it upsets Muslims. Yet none of you will explain how far you would go to appease terrorists. Why is that? Are you scared to say?

Bullshit...

Demonstrate exactly and explicitly where I have done that.

What I have done is called you on your own hypocrisy with regards your hand wringing for Freedom of Speech, which you demonstrably do not support in action.

That is all I have done.

No where have I either indicated that
"the cartoons should not have been published and that freedom of speech is not worth it if it upsets Muslims."

In point of fact, that is a blatant and outright lie on your part.

Which kind of pigeon holes you.

Get back when you can add honestly and critical thinking to you posts won't you.

Quote:

I reckon it is well past time you defined freedom of speech, and where you reckon the limits are.

How about you go first and tell us what rights you would give up to appease terrorists?


Quote:

Do not pigeon me as you have in that last post.  I have not expressed any view as yet, other than to point out what I regard as your hypocrisy.

Don't be scared Aussie.


Quote:

What I have done is called you on your own hypocrisy with regards your hand wringing for Freedom of Speech, which you demonstrably do not support in action. That is all I have done.

You have also demonstrated that you have an infantile interpretation of freedom of speech and are incapable of making a rational judgement on the matter. Like I keep telling you, go ahead and start a thread on the definition, rather than posting the same idiotic crap in thread after thread.


Quote:

No where have I either indicated that "the cartoons should not have been published and that freedom of speech is not worth it if it upsets Muslims."

Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish those cartoons? No need to whine about what you did and did not say. Just come out and say what you think right here.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:10am:

Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish those cartoons? No need to whine about what you did and did not say. Just come out and say what you think right here.

ROFLMAO - you are the whiner ol' son...

I have never indicated or demonstrated other than support for their right to publish that which they choose to.

I have clearly come out and said what I "think" somewhat consistently. I invite you to have a go at thinking...

How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus?

get this members of ozpol/'/ FreeDUMB

will never ever answer a question....he is like a stuck record.. and just as boring...

mummy must have taught him a new word.. 'appeasement' and he finds the dribbling need to ask it everywhere he goes.....


dont anyone want to tell him tha

t no one can appease mad brain washed fanatics........

and he is slowly becoming just like them.... demanding and repetitive..

ways to appease freedumb....

demand an ignore button.....???


nah that wouldnt fit in with freedumbs idea of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus?

that you see is not the argument.....someone on here ev en brought in WW11 as an example.. of something or other....you are deflecting....no ones head was chopped off in Paris.. no school bus was blown up...

if you are mad enough to ignore madmen when they make it quite clear they will kill you if you keep PROV OKING....

then that is really up to you...

would you have done what Charlie did... had you been the owner of that magazine.........????????

would you have provoked them even more.......

and btw fanatics dont need much provoking...

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? that you see is not the argument.....someone on here ev en brought in WW11 as an example.. of something or other....you are deflecting....no ones head was chopped off in Paris.. no school bus was blown up... if you are mad enough to ignore madmen when they make it quite clear they will kill you if you keep PROV OKING.... then that is really up to you... would you have done what Charlie did... had you been the owner of that magazine.........???????? would you have provoked them even more....... and btw fanatics dont need much provoking...

Round them all up, and their families and friends and deport them, never to be allowed in again.

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus?

It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever.

However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it.

Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be.

Soren wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:29am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? that you see is not the argument.....someone on here ev en brought in WW11 as an example.. of something or other....you are deflecting....no ones head was chopped off in Paris.. no school bus was blown up... if you are mad enough to ignore madmen when they make it quite clear they will kill you if you keep PROV OKING.... then that is really up to you... would you have done what Charlie did... had you been the owner of that magazine.........???????? would you have provoked them even more....... and btw fanatics dont need much provoking... Round them all up, and their families and friends and deport them, never to be allowed in again.

hey that will include a few on here....dont tell freedumb you said that,,

we would miss all the fun.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:49am:

Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be.

well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences....

if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that..

they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else..

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:54am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else..

cods, you and pansi are just being illogical. you are saying that if provocation causes someone to lose their temper, then the provoker must share some of the blame.
this is a NONSENSE
the fact you then try to support your arguement using the case of domestic violence proves the lack of logic.
in what circumstances in australia would the police turn up to a scene of a bashed woman and try to sheet home some of the blame to the woman for provoking her partner. it would never happen. it is ILLOGICAL.
the person who loses their temper wears 100 % of the blame and rightly so.
we run "anger management classes " in australia.
we do not run "provocation management classes"
the person who becomes angry IS THE CULPRIT. full stop.
you cannot blame your anger on anyone. it is YOUR emotion.
this is grade 1 social training.
i find your and pansis position just straight out perplexing :-? :-?

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 9:54am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else..

If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault.

I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know...

Quantum wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:54am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else.. If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know...

Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them...

If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:31pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:54am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else.. If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know... Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them... If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it.

I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did...

Quantum wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:31pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:54am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else.. If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know... Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them... If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries. You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it. I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did...

exactly quantum.  cods and pansi have a wiring problem in their brain. they need to see a neurologist

Me to freediver:


Quote:

I reckon it is well past time you defined freedom of speech, and where you reckon the limits are.

freediver's response to that:


Quote:

How about you go first and tell us what rights you would give up to appease terrorists?

freediver, it is by way of my reaction to your dismissiveness and outright insulting and intolerable arrogance that I choose to snipe into your Threads, because to do otherwise would be an act of appeasement I am not willing to take.

Quantum wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:54am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else.. If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know...

Exactly, she didn't deserve it but she was playing Russian Roulette with a crazy dude. There was a woman murdered by her husband not long ago, her friends and sisters almost expected it, she was repeatedly warned but bravely continued to stay with him. If a woman is kept prisoner that's different but if she has the chance to do a runner and chooses to stay, well what can I say, it's too late when you're dead, but that's domestic violence, not quite the same as religious terrorism, although the reason for the final outcome can be the same.......pushing....pushing....pushing.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 12:20pm: cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:54am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:49am: Rocketanski wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 9:16am: How far does the defence of provocation for murder extend? How badly do you have to be offended before it's o.k to chop someone's head off or blow up a school bus? It's never ever ok to chop heads off, ever. However, if you feel the need to provoke some madman to the extent they want to chop your head off, go for it. Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be. well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences.... if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that.. they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else.. If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know... Exactly, she didn't deserve it but she was playing Russian Roulette with a crazy dude. There was a woman murdered by her husband not long ago, her friends and sisters almost expected it, she was repeatedly warned but bravely continued to stay with him. If a woman is kept prisoner that's different but if she has the chance to do a runner and chooses to stay, well what can I say, it's too late when you're dead, but that's domestic violence, not quite the same as religious terrorism, although the reason for the final outcome can be the same.......pushing....pushing....pushing.

Are you STILL trying to say that the victim of domestic violence bears responsibility for the behaviour of a violent partner.
i cant actually believe i"m reading this in 2015 Australia and from a woman and from a lefty.
Its just NUTZ

If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault.

I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know...


Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them...

If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

quantum
You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it.

I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did...

in your mind of course..


in mine   IT IS THE LAW THAT SAYS

"""NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"""...

and I think you will find in countries with LAWS AGAINST THAT.. everyone is aware of the LAW.. even when they are drinking...

you see the argument I put up.. oh never mind it will escape you anyway...


in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law

it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY....

stop insulting stop BULLYING...

why is that such a HARD thing to so????>..

FSS - how did this turn into a woman receiving her righteous reward for attacking a man?   [smiley=beer.gif]   [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif] FSS.....

Oddly enough - and not so oddly enough - a MAN nagging and nagging and nagging is considered 'domestic violence'.... just saying..... good for goose.. good for gander.....

I'll take another gander at the two blondies in the pool here..... but I won't goose one....man - just make the invitation, girls.... those sounds of passion from my flat last night didn't mean anything between us....

Re: cheese eating surrender monkeys
Reply #50 - Today at 7:59am Quote  Brian, Aussie, cods, pansi, svengali, Phem, you have all suggested in your own unique way that the cartoons should not have been published and that freedom of speech is not worth it if it upsets Muslims. Yet none of you will explain how far you would go to appease terrorists. Why is that? Are you scared to say?


thats not fair freedumb.......I have told you over and over what I would do.. just because you are too dumb to understand it.. not my fault..

me scared????? ;D ;D ;D are you kidding me... ;D ;D ;D

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

FSS - how did this turn into a woman receiving her righteous reward for attacking a man?   [smiley=beer.gif]   [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif] FSS..... Oddly enough - and not so oddly enough - a MAN nagging and nagging and nagging is considered 'domestic violence'.... just saying..... good for goose.. good for gander..... I'll take another gander at the two blondies in the pool here..... but I won't goose one....man - just make the invitation, girls.... those sounds of passion from my flat last night didn't mean anything between us....

I dont think you mean that... nagging I agree USED to be the go....and it was horrible.. but nothing excuses violence...

if you were a child and witnessed your mum being bashed I think you would erase that from your mind...

pansi quite missed the point I was making...as have others..

the drunk blames the booze for his actions... rather than blame himself for drinking in the first place....drinking and violence go together....sadly...no one is forced to drink it is completely voluntary

in other words booze is no excuse to bash anyone..

rocky was asking about defence basically where does defence stop when it comes to provocation why are madmen allowed to use a cartoon as provocation to kill...

it isnt that they are allowed to do anything..

its just that they do.....

.and as long as you bear the consequences...you can of course keep provoking just understand no complaining when you get what was promised... ::)

aquascoot wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 1:35pm:

Are you STILL trying to say that the victim of domestic violence bears responsibility for the behaviour of a violent partner. i cant actually believe i"m reading this in 2015 Australia and from a woman and from a lefty. Its just NUTZ

easy aqua....pansi is like me on this one....

the women [ charlie] had a choice..

she could have left....charlie could have stopped the cartoons..

b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing...

both made the wrong choice as far as we are concerned..

so if you are looking to put the blame somewhere...then you have to say the provocation /printing and staying.. was a direct cause of the eventual murders....

no one is saying the murderer is free and had rights...

they didnt but when dealing with mad people you do not provoke.them...stay away./stop. dont make it worse...

violent people are unreasonable people..

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know... Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them... If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries. quantum You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it. I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did... in your mind of course.. in mine   IT IS THE LAW THAT SAYS """NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"""... and I think you will find in countries with LAWS AGAINST THAT.. everyone is aware of the LAW.. even when they are drinking... you see the argument I put up.. oh never mind it will escape you anyway... in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY.... stop insulting stop BULLYING... why is that such a HARD thing to so????>..

Yes there are laws against hitting people. I think you will find there are laws against shooting people as well, cods.

You can't play this both ways. If a women bullies a man to the point that he hits her, you can't turn around and say that there is no excuse for violence and that it is again the law, and at the same time claim that those making the cartoons have to share blame for what happened and that they should have known better.

If kicking the "beehive" is such an unwise thing to do, how the hell can you say it ok for a women to kick a "beehive" (a violent man) but everyone else should know better. It is inconsistent beyond belief.

Quantum wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:59pm:

cods wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 3:33pm: If she was nagging, and nagging, and whining, and he turned around and bitched slapped her, you have to admit, it is her fault. I mean, she new he could be violent and she kept nagging at him anyway? What did she expect? If you kick a beehive you are going to get stung, you know... Ironically though, those who use that as a defense (either for themselves or in defense of some other loser) usually have no ticker when they are confronted by a male...You know face to face, being abusive or perhaps "nagging" them... If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries. quantum You missed the point. I'm not defending him. Cods is! ... But she doesn't realise it. I'm using the exact same argument she has been using in regards to Paris, even including the "beehive" analogy. If she is to be consistent she would have to say the women got what she asked for. She provoked the "beehive" and got stung, just like charlie did... in your mind of course.. in mine   IT IS THE LAW THAT SAYS """NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"""... and I think you will find in countries with LAWS AGAINST THAT.. everyone is aware of the LAW.. even when they are drinking... you see the argument I put up.. oh never mind it will escape you anyway... in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY.... stop insulting stop BULLYING... why is that such a HARD thing to so????>.. Yes there are laws against hitting people. I think you will find there are laws against shooting people as well, cods. You can't play this both ways. If a women bullies a man to the point that he hits her, you can't turn around and say that there is no excuse for violence and that it is again the law, and at the same time claim that those making the cartoons have to share blame for what happened and that they should have known better. If kicking the "beehive" is such an unwise thing to do, how the hell can you say it ok for a women to kick a "beehive" (a violent man) but everyone else should know better. It is inconsistent beyond belief.

I knew it..

she HAD A CHOICE... C HARLIE HAD A CHOICE.

I did not say anything at all about it BEING OK..

I said there is a LAW AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE...

there is or was NO LAW AGAINST THE PRINTING OF THE CARTOON>>

is was left to COMMON DECENCY...

grap brought up the nagging... and most domestic violence we see today had nothing to so with nagging..

most women are terrified of their partner.. down trodden and yes WEAK>..some have kids and dont know where to take them

so stupid as it is they STAY... and get killed...

and as stupid as it was..

CHARLIE kept drawing and printing the cartoons...

and got killed for his trouble...

both had CHOICES THEY HAD THE WARNINGS>>

they women was warned to leave her crazy husband...

charlie was warned by a crazy gang...

no one is saying anything was right about either case...

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

we know both were BRAVE...like you.. no one would stop you doing what you chose to do... we know.. :( :( :(.. even if it meant death..

the women I am talking about and the one YOU choose to talk about.. are not one the same thing..

go back and read grap...he has taken it around the corner.. and put the blame as per usual on the victim.. nagging...... BULLYING...  :D :D

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:55pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 1:35pm: Are you STILL trying to say that the victim of domestic violence bears responsibility for the behaviour of a violent partner. i cant actually believe i"m reading this in 2015 Australia and from a woman and from a lefty. Its just NUTZ easy aqua....pansi is like me on this one.... the women [ charlie] had a choice.. she could have left....charlie could have stopped the cartoons.. b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing... both made the wrong choice as far as we are concerned.. so if you are looking to put the blame somewhere...then you have to say the provocation /printing and staying.. was a direct cause of the eventual murders.... no one is saying the murderer is free and had rights... they didnt but when dealing with mad people you do not provoke.them...stay away./stop. dont make it worse... violent people are unreasonable people..

Aqua....you're reading something into it that's not there. Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got. I've said that before, get it? The journo's and the victims of domestic violence don't deserve to be murdered. Get that?

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome, I've heard women say (sorry grappler I've never heard a man say it) "if I had have stayed he would have killed me" lot's of domestic violence victims say that.

Ok, so they know they're in danger but they don't make the necessary changes to protect themselves. See, still not deserving of it, but bad choices cost them their lives.

i can see a slight glimmer of a point.
only a slight one though.
one must remember that charles wasnt really living in the family home with the Jihaddists.
i'm sure charlie had already taken out an AVO and wasnt really going "back to" the jihaddists.  they are more like some mental ex boyfriend who tracks the other party down.
I doubt the cartoonists invited the jihadists in and said "sit down and look what new work weve got to show you today"

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 3:36pm: FSS - how did this turn into a woman receiving her righteous reward for attacking a man?   [smiley=beer.gif]   [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif] FSS..... Oddly enough - and not so oddly enough - a MAN nagging and nagging and nagging is considered 'domestic violence'.... just saying..... good for goose.. good for gander..... I'll take another gander at the two blondies in the pool here..... but I won't goose one....man - just make the invitation, girls.... those sounds of passion from my flat last night didn't mean anything between us.... I dont think you mean that... nagging I agree USED to be the go....and it was horrible.. but nothing excuses violence... if you were a child and witnessed your mum being bashed I think you would erase that from your mind... pansi quite missed the point I was making...as have others.. the drunk blames the booze for his actions... rather than blame himself for drinking in the first place....drinking and violence go together....sadly...no one is forced to drink it is completely voluntary in other words booze is no excuse to bash anyone.. rocky was asking about defence basically where does defence stop when it comes to provocation why are madmen allowed to use a cartoon as provocation to kill... it isnt that they are allowed to do anything.. its just that they do..... .and as long as you bear the consequences...you can of course keep provoking just understand no complaining when you get what was promised... ::)

Cods - darling - I was bashed by my drunken father repeatedly, same from my mother who once stabbed me, and was abandoned by both at an early age (thank god).....

There is NOTHING you can tell me about 'domestic violence' and how it has become perverted into an avenue for bashing men such as myself over and over again... without so much as the Rule of Law.....

For the Infidels here - EVERYONE who knows me knows I am a gentle and considerate and caring person... YOUR 'domestic violence' is violence writ large against the community and is in dire need of repair.

While ever there is a standard of zero proof and of conviction on complaint, as applies in the current domestic 'violence'' nonsense that so favours 'feminism' - there will never be any diminution in 'domestic violence' - since these 'laws' themselves promote violence against the individual without proper cause.

You simply do not understand what constitutes Violence, and are prepared to accept that somehow violence is something malleable by definition to suit some agenda, and something perfectly acceptable in one side, but not the other.

A crime against humanity... by definition..

No go forth and rectify the current violence against the community under these NON laws.

Then we can talk.

Quote:

I have never indicated or demonstrated other than support for their right to publish that which they choose to.

Quite a mouthful there Phem. You have avoided taking any kind of stance at all. Do you support Charlie Hebdo's right to publish those cartoons?


Quote:

dont anyone want to tell him tha t no one can appease mad brain washed fanatics........

Doesn't stop you trying though, does it cods? How far would you go to appease terrorists?


Quote:

and he is slowly becoming just like them.... demanding and repetitive..

So the whole slaughtering innocent people aspect is irrelevant to you?


Quote:

Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be.

Are you suggesting you can predict the next terrorist attack Pansi? If you're foresight as as crystal clear as your hindsight, why didn't you warn Charlie Hebdo?


Quote:

well said pansi..... we have to take our share of the responsibility for the consequences....

How are we to blame for the terrorist attacks in France cods? This is a new low for you.


Quote:

if a man belts a women up and then blames the alcohol HE DRANK....I shake my head.....but so many males think like that..

Yet you happily clame Charlie Hebdo.


Quote:

they have a magic button somewhere that says they did nothing wrong it was someone or something else..

Who does? Charlie Hebdo? What do you think they did that was so 'wrong' cods?


Quote:

you cannot blame your anger on anyone. it is YOUR emotion. this is grade 1 social training.

Cods can blame it on the cartoonists. And us, somehow.


Quote:

If he actually "manned up" he would simply walk away. But go ahead keep defending cowardly lashing out with violence no worries.

Like you defend the terrorists Phem?


Quote:

freediver's response to that:

No Aussie. My response was go ahead and start a thread dedicated to it. You and the other apologists will only bring it up to deflect from your appeasement of terrorists. You will not start a new thread on it because that would be just another thread highlighting the utter stupidity of your posts.


Quote:

freediver, it is by way of my reaction to your dismissiveness and outright insulting and intolerable arrogance that I choose to snipe into your Threads, because to do otherwise would be an act of appeasement I am not willing to take.

But you will happily appease terrorists?


Quote:

in the case of the cartoon.. it had not a thing to do with the law it was dealing with COMMON DECENCY.... stop insulting stop BULLYING... why is that such a HARD thing to so????>..

Cods, it is not a hard thing to do. It is the easy way out, and you with all your 'logical analysis' should see that. But it is the wrong thing to do. Self censorship in the face of attacks on freedom of speech is the best way to loose your freedom of speech. So tell us cods, how far would you go to appease terrorists? What else would you insist people should not do because Muslims are overly sensitive? If Muslims went apeshit every time we criticised Islam, would you start telling people to stop criticising Islam?


Quote:

hats not fair freedumb.......I have told you over and over what I would do.. just because you are too dumb to understand it.. not my fault..

You have not answered the question cods. You have said what you would do to appease terrorists, but you have not sauid what you would not do. You have not said where you would draw the line. So haw far would you go to appease terrorists? Which of your freedoms would you deny your children?


Quote:

pansi quite missed the point I was making...as have others.. the drunk blames the booze for his actions...

And the spineless appeasers blame the victims, not the terrorists, right cods? Even we are somehow to blame, aren't we?


Quote:

b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing...

No they did not cods. This is your spineless appeasement talking, not reality. The terrorists want people to fear any sort of criticism of Islam because they do not know who will become a victim, and the want idiotic appeasement monkeys to run around blaming the victim after the fact
and telling everyone they knew all along what was going to happen and only have themselves to blame. You are doing the terrorists bidding for them. You are even lying on their behalf to help their cause. No-one here goes out of their way more than you to assist the cause of terrorism. This is about as low as it gets. Or maybe not. No wonder you refuse to say how much lower you would go.


Quote:

I did not say anything at all about it BEING OK..

But you did say Charlie Hebdo was in the wrong. You did say freedom of speech is not worth standing up for. You even came up with some deluded BS that this outcome was entirely predictable, even though previous experience says the opposite. What could we possibly call this, other than spineless appeasement?

Quote:

BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E..

You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists.


Quote:

Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got.

Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome?


Quote:

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.

Quote:

No Aussie. My response was go ahead and start a thread dedicated to it. You and the other apologists will only bring it up to deflect from your appeasement of terrorists. You will not start a new thread on it because that would be just another thread highlighting the utter stupidity of your posts.

That is a lie.  You made that suggestion to another poster, not to me.  That's your over all problem, well.......one of many.  You are tarring everyone with your preconceptions.  I'd be less quick to refer to the stupidity in the posts of others if I were you.

Is the provocation necessary in the name of free speech. I think not, however we should all be entitled to provoke certain groups if we feel like doing so, but we should always be prepared to take the consequences because by now we know what they will likely be.

Perhaps it is long overdue for the groups that feel provoked by mild criticism to take a long and had look at themselves, and to take the consequences' of their own actions.

They are alienating a society that sheltered and harboured them.

Sorry to say - it is THEY who are promoting jihad against themselves, and let's be honest - how many will actually grieve for a few Muslim innocent bystanders caught up in the jihad of some of their own?

You were standing beside Osama Bin Laden with bullshit when the missile struck?  Tough titties....

Quote:

That is a lie.  You made that suggestion to another poster, not to me.

I have made it to several posters, including you. But in any case, here it is again. If you really do not know what freedom of speech means, start a thread on it. Otherwise, this is just another attempt by you to deflect from your eagerness to appease terrorists and your unwillingness to take any kind of position on the issue. With such a clear-cut case like Charlie Hebdo, there is a serious problem with anyone who cannot figure out where they stand.


Quote:

That's your over all problem, well.......one of many.  You are tarring everyone with your preconceptions.

There is a small group of posters here that refuses to stand up for freedom of speech, Charlie Hebdo etc. They are not Muslims, but for some reason eager to discard freedom in order to appease terrorists. What they all have in common is a complete refusal to explain their position on the matter. So far, only Phem has made an effort, by throwing together a few double negatives to point out that he has not taken a principled stance on anything. As far as I am concerned, you are all in the same basket.

Gee, you just do not see your own duplicity do you.  Have a read of this....your words.


Quote:

but for some reason eager to discard freedom in order to appease terrorists. What they all have in common is a complete refusal to explain their position on the matter.

You want me to defend a concept.....freedom or freedom of speech, YET it is YOU who refuses to explain your position on that threshold matter!  Do you see that?

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

Quote: BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E.. You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists. [quote]Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got.

Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome?


Quote:

It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.[/quote]




I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

Have any of you appeasers done it yet?

There is nothing worse than someone who is prepared to blather for days  on end, but is not prepared to come face to face with the problem at hand.

If I've got a beef with a politician at least I go to their office and tell them straight out.

Get your anti-Islam t shirt on and go to the mosque. What will it take for you to stop appeasing the terrorists?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 6:27am:

freediver wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:22pm: Quote: BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E.. You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists. [quote]Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got. Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome? [quote]It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome

How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.[/quote]




I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

Have any of you appeasers done it yet?

There is nothing worse than someone who is prepared to blather for days  on end, but is not prepared to come face to face with the problem at hand.

If I've got a beef with a politician at least I go to their office and tell them straight out.

Get your anti-Islam t shirt on and go to the mosque. What will it take for you to stop appeasing the terrorists?[/quote]


pansi... you are not giving fd the answers he is seeking in his version of Freedom of SPeech...

he basically turns a very interesting subject into a pain....

I think its very important to get peoples opinion on these topics... its all about how we deal with something and the general outcome...

as we can see with fds version and a few others... there is a very INTENSE situation  i nFrance and now Belgium..the ring leader of the extremists is still on the loose. which means he is desperate to inflict more pain.....all for a cartoon..

I have noticed a few agreeing with us....regarding the choice Charlie made.....and thats cool...even Pope Frances agrees haha.. we are blessed....

to me it was a no brainer....

Aussie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Gee, you just do not see your own duplicity do you.  Have a read of this....your words. Quote: but for some reason eager to discard freedom in order to appease terrorists. What they all have in common is a complete refusal to explain their position on the matter. You want me to defend a concept.....freedom or freedom of speech, YET it is YOU who refuses to explain your position on that threshold matter!  Do you see that?

its laughable aussie that someone like fd thinks to cancel an abusive cartoon   is giving up your FREEDOM OF SPEECH....

I mean... REALLY!

cods wrote on Jan 19^th, 2015 at 7:42am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 19th, 2015 at 6:27am: freediver wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:22pm: Quote: BUT BOTH>...in my OPINION MADE THE WRONG CHOIC E.. You have this opinion because you do not value freedom of speech, or if you do, you don't have the spine to stand up for it. We still do not know of course, because as ever, you refuse to explain just how far you would bend over to appease terrorists. [quote]Neither cods or I believe the victims deserve what they got. Pansi, how else are we expected to interpret you and cods saying they made the wrong choice and are to blame for the outcome? [quote]It seems they both knew it was a likely outcome How so Pansi? This is a just another lie the spineless appeasers spin to try to shift more of the blame onto the victim. You are so eager to appease the terrorists you make up obvious lies to do so.

I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

Have any of you appeasers done it yet?

There is nothing worse than someone who is prepared to blather for days  on end, but is not prepared to come face to face with the problem at hand.

If I've got a beef with a politician at least I go to their office and tell them straight out.

Get your anti-Islam t shirt on and go to the mosque. What will it take for you to stop appeasing the terrorists?[/quote]


pansi... you are not giving fd the answers he is seeking in his version of Freedom of SPeech...

he basically turns a very interesting subject into a pain....

I think its very important to get peoples opinion on these topics... its all about how we deal with something and the general outcome...

as we can see with fds version and a few others... there is a very INTENSE situation  i nFrance and now Belgium..the ring leader of the extremists is still on the loose. which means he is desperate to inflict more pain.....all for a cartoon..

I have noticed a few agreeing with us....regarding the choice Charlie made.....and thats cool...even Pope Frances agrees haha.. we are blessed....

to me it was a no brainer....[/quote]

many blessings , and it is recorded on and for the record ..

many freemasonic fairygodmothers deliberately

polarise debate and antagonise the issue of the novelty of the day, whatever that happens to be ...

this is well established and they continue to hoodwink

as they go ... many see these clueless dupes for what and whom they are..

and so be it , carry on regardless

namaste

- : ) =

Quote:

You want me to defend a concept.....freedom or freedom of speech

How about you start with taking a stance? Do you support it or not Aussie?


Quote:

I'm calling you the appeaser freediver, until you walk the talk and get your butt to a mosque and tell the Muslims what you think.

You are the one afraid to take a stance Pansi.


Quote:

he basically turns a very interesting subject into a pain....

You mean I turn your empty headed, spineless appeasement into a discussion about freedom of speech? Am I getting in the way of your victim blaming?


Quote:

I think its very important to get peoples opinion on these topics...

Do you support freedom of speech pansi? How far would you go to appease terrorists?


Quote:

its laughable aussie that someone like fd thinks to cancel an abusive cartoon   is giving up your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.... I mean... REALLY!

It's called self-censorship cods. Do you support it? What else would you refrain from doing in order to appease terrorists?

I have come to the conclusion that it's not about "free speech' as much as Islamophobia born in the USA and spreading throughout the western world.



http://theamericanmuslim.org/images/uploads/18746/fear,_inc.__large.jpg

I dunno Pansi. knocking down the twin towers didn't seem a tad hateful to you ;) ;).

But I agree, it is all unhelpful.

The change in mood can only come when the non radical muslims, take on and defeat the radical muslims.  it isn't a problem the west can solve.
its a problem for the religion itself. One they are handling with a head in the sand approach (very similar to the catholic churchs handling of the pedophillia issue). you just lose street cred, if you don't come down like a "ton of bricks" when your own flock are out of order.

Quote:

I have come to the conclusion that it's not about "free speech' as much as Islamophobia born in the USA and spreading throughout the western world.

Did Islamophobia make you afraid to offend Muslims? Did Islamophobia slaughter the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists? Did Islamophobia make you campaign against freedom of speech? What would it take for you to blame these Muslims for their own actions? How far would you take this spineless appeasement?

aquascoot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 7:31am:

I dunno Pansi. knocking down the twin towers didn't seem a tad hateful to you ;) ;). But I agree, it is all unhelpful. The change in mood can only come when the non radical muslims, take on and defeat the radical muslims.  it isn't a problem the west can solve. its a problem for the religion itself. One they are handling with a head in the sand approach (very similar to the catholic churchs handling of the pedophillia issue). you just lose street cred, if you don't come down like a "ton of bricks" when your own flock are out of order.

abso,utely... when the West backs away from giving a damn about things that do not appear to have a solution too...Israel and Palestine .. they cant live together let them fight...IGNORE BUTTON...

same with Fanatical extremists...who fly under the name of ISLAM...cliomaing to be the real ISLAM..

let them sort it out....if those in foreign countries wish to go and fight the good fight.. let them....tell them they cannot come back.. simple..if they bring their troubles to our shores....we will deal with them as we/the govts of the day see fit..

if it means shooting  them at down.. so be it..

I am so over anyone thinking its up to US the WEST to solve all this crap...

does anyone know what ISIL wants exactly????

I dont think they even know... >:( >:( >:(
freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing... No they did not cods. This is your spineless appeasement talking, not reality. The terrorists want people to fear any sort of criticism of Islam because they do not know who will become a victim, and the want idiotic appeasement monkeys to run around blaming the victim after the fact and telling everyone they knew all along what was going to happen and only have themselves to blame. You are doing the terrorists bidding for them. You are even lying on their behalf to help their cause. No-one here goes out of their way more than you to assist the cause of terrorism. This is about as low as it gets. Or maybe not. No wonder you refuse to say how much lower you would go

\ gawd fd has been busy sorting everyone into his little rant files.....


and you are not making the extreme terrorists worse.. by keep on insulting because insulting words are worth fighting... ::) ::) ::)

its ok fd I cant even be bothered trying to change your mind...you think kicking the angry terrorists will make them go away.. I get that. ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D

or do you actually think thats what APPEASEMENT MEANS?.. and you are achieving it.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 7:38am:

Quote: I have come to the conclusion that it's not about "free speech' as much as Islamophobia born in the USA and spreading throughout the western world. Did Islamophobia make you afraid to offend Muslims? Did Islamophobia slaughter the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists? Did Islamophobia make you campaign against freedom of speech? What would it take for you to blame these Muslims for their own actions? How far would you take this spineless appeasement?

I am in favour of all humourless cartoons disappearing...

to lampoon Jews doesnt win friends.. to lampoon the Pope doesnt win friend.. to Lampoon anyoen just for the hell of is SICK...

everyone has a right to complain... and I am sure just about all those who get mocked incessantly  day in day out have also complained.........just not threatened to kill

we know you dont believe in FREE SPEECH fd...your own forum tells us that...do you allow your kids to abuse other kids in the name of FREEDOM of CHOICE?.

cods wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 7:47am:

freediver wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:22pm: Quote: b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing... No they did not cods. This is your spineless appeasement talking, not reality. The terrorists want people to fear any sort of criticism of Islam because they do not know who will become a victim, and the want idiotic appeasement monkeys to run around blaming the victim after the fact and telling everyone they knew all along what was going to happen and only have themselves to blame. You are doing the terrorists bidding for them. You are even lying on their behalf to help their cause. No-one here goes out of their way more than you to assist the cause of terrorism. This is about as low as it gets. Or maybe not. No wonder you refuse to say how much lower you would go \ gawd fd has been busy sorting everyone into his little rant files.....

Cods did you know before the Charlie Hebdo attacks that it was inevitable? Or are you confusing your amazing powers of hindsight with foresight?


Quote:

does anyone know what ISIL wants exactly????

I do. They want spineless appeasers in the west to convince people that freedom of speech is not worth defending, so they can take it from us and move on to the next liberty they find offensive.

If you ask nicely they will give you some IS pompoms.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 7:56am:

cods wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 7:47am: freediver wrote on Jan 18th, 2015 at 7:22pm: Quote: b oth... knew something bad would happen ... if they chose to stay/keep drawing... No they did not cods. This is your spineless appeasement talking, not reality. The terrorists want people to fear any sort of criticism of Islam because they do not know who will become a victim, and the want idiotic appeasement monkeys to run around blaming the victim after the fact and telling everyone they knew all along what was going to happen and only have themselves to blame. You are doing the terrorists bidding for them. You are even lying on their behalf to help their cause. No-one here goes out of their way more than you to assist the cause of terrorism. This is about as low as it gets. Or maybe not. No wonder you refuse to say how much lower you would go \ gawd fd has been busy sorting everyone into his little rant files..... Cods did you know before the Charlie Hebdo attacks that it was inevitable? Or are you confusing your amazing powers of hindsight with foresight? IF I WAS CHARLIE HEBDO I WOULD HAVE KNOWN.... IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT I KNOW I OR DIDNT KNOW...ITS WHAT CHARLIE KNEW THAT MATTERS. [quote]does anyone know what ISIL wants exactly????

I do. They want spineless appeasers in the west to convince people that freedom of speech is not worth defending, so they can take it from us and move on to the next liberty they find offensive.

If you ask nicely they will give you some IS pompoms.

[/quote]


SO DO THEY WANT US ALL TO APPEASE THEM OR JUST MUSLIMS??

I HAVE TRIED TO CONVINCE YOU YOU STIFLE MY FREEDOM ON SPEECH ON HERE......YET NOTHING I DO OR SAY APPEASES YOU... WHY WOULD THESE MAD AS A SWARM OF BEES FANATICS  BE ANY DIFFERENT?..

bb has changed his username, but some things cannot be hidden:


Julius Abbott wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

France has made a big mistake. Supporting the publishing of these cartoons is the biggest recruitment tool that groups like IS and al-Qaeda could ever hope for.

Pansi is not the sort to let the fact she has not thought about a topic at all get in the way of prolifically posting what she "thinks" on a topic across multiple threads.


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm: Pansi's concept of freedom lost: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 1:03pm: I have lost nothing because I never wanted to publish crude cartoons about Muhammed or Jesus or any other prophet. So tell us Pansi, at what point would you consider yourself to have lost something, and at what point would you actually stand up for your rights? Never? Better to let other people do it for you? I wouldn't have a clue at this point in time, but it's certainly not some cartoon offending Muhammad. To me it would have to be a lot more important than that. Why start a war over a cartoon? Pathetic. I stand up for my rights, but I'm not standing up for your fight against Islam, that's your baby and I'm happy to let you have it.

She does not even realise what is being taken from her:


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 4:24pm:

Dame Pansi Quote: I stand up for my rights freediver You have a right to mock Muhammed. So far all I see is you trying to get rid of it. You stand up for nothing. You don't even know if you would stand up for any right if they tried to take it off you. I do have a right to mock Muhammod, I am even allowed to mock Muhammod if I want to, but I don't want to. I don't even want to mock Jesus (although The Life of Brian is hilarious) or religion (except those Jews banging that little black box on their head against the wall are funny). But all in all, I much prefer to mock Abbott, Shorty, Julie Bishop and Obama. Of course I don't know what my reaction would be, until I know what's getting taken off me.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2015 at 9:38am:

Pansi is not the sort to let the fact she has not thought about a topic at all get in the way of prolifically posting what she "thinks" on a topic across multiple threads. Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 2:50pm: freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 1:16pm: Pansi's concept of freedom lost: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 1:03pm: I have lost nothing because I never wanted to publish crude cartoons about Muhammed or Jesus or any other prophet. So tell us Pansi, at what point would you consider yourself to have lost something, and at what point would you actually stand up for your rights? Never? Better to let other people do it for you? I wouldn't have a clue at this point in time, but it's certainly not some cartoon offending Muhammad. To me it would have to be a lot more important than that. Why start a war over a cartoon? Pathetic. I stand up for my rights, but I'm not standing up for your fight against Islam, that's your baby and I'm happy to let you have it. She does not even realise what is being taken from her: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dame Pansi Quote: I stand up for my rights freediver You have a right to mock Muhammed. So far all I see is you trying to get rid of it. You stand up for nothing. You don't even know if you would stand up for any right if they tried to take it off you. I do have a right to mock Muhammod, I am even allowed to mock Muhammod if I want to, but I don't want to. I don't even want to mock Jesus (although The Life of Brian is hilarious) or religion (except those Jews banging that little black box on their head against the wall are funny). But all in all, I much prefer to mock Abbott, Shorty, Julie Bishop and Obama. Of course I don't know what my reaction would be, until I know what's getting taken off me.

pansi isnt the only one who doesnt realise what is being taken from her..

what about her rights FoS so to speak on the SHED you have sneakily started and women are n ot allowed... you do know that discrimination dont you????......

I mean here you are prattling on about YOUR version of FoS but discrimination is A>OK...

hypocrisy is thy name..

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

bb has changed his username, but some things cannot be hidden: Julius Abbott wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 10:56am: France has made a big mistake. Supporting the publishing of these cartoons is the biggest recruitment tool that groups like IS and al-Qaeda could ever hope for.

Oh, goodie - get them all in one place - when the saturation level of AQ and IS is above a certain point.. raze it to the ground and lower....

cods wrote on Jan 20^th, 2015 at 5:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2015 at 10:58am: Quote: Personally, I am against the more extreme cartoons such as his being published: You have posted that one a few times already. Is this how you demonstrate your opposition to something being published? [quote]France has made a big mistake. Supporting the publishing of these cartoons is the biggest recruitment tool that groups like IS and al-Qaeda could ever hope for. So we should abandon freedom of speech because it makes Muslims angry?

well maybe because they kill when they say they will

but that wont stop our very own bwave leader.....

I am so proud

might even go on facebook... and put ozpol out there.. so everyone can get their FREEDOM OF SPEECH flags out and wave you as you march to face the baddies..

head on...

who will you leave the empire too fd???...just so we can start getting the WELCOME FLAG ready....
[/quote]


cods wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2015 at 8:38am:

how ever they say what they mean and mean what they say... they have proved it over and over...and I for one believe them....it dosnt mean we agree with them....it just means we accept what they say.... personally I dont think it was unreasonable to ask this magazine to stop printing the cartoons.and they were asked in a kind of terrorist way..

Svengali wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 1:31pm:

Freediver and its ilk has created a culture of hostility to Islam and its adherents without regard to the fact that 99.999% of adherents to Islam are decent and peaceful people...

Every poll of Muslims in western society has shown an 'alarming' percentage of them whose opinions differ radically from those of the mainstream about the moral justification for jihad terrorism against western targets.

A poll taken in the UK of Muslim opinion after 9/11 showed only 10% of those polled were wholly and completely on the side of the west.

You need to do some Googling, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of these polling results have become 'lost' in order to appease certain 'sensitivities'.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2015 at 11:26am:

Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:31pm: Freediver and its ilk has created a culture of hostility to Islam and its adherents without regard to the fact that 99.999% of adherents to Islam are decent and peaceful people... Every poll of Muslims in western society has shown an 'alarming' percentage of them whose opinions differ radically from those of the mainstream about the moral justification for jihad terrorism against western targets. A poll taken in the UK of Muslim opinion after 9/11 showed only 10% of those polled were wholly and completely on the side of the west. You need to do some Googling, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of these polling results have become 'lost' in order to appease certain 'sensitivities'.

Convenient, can't find the polls, they've been deleted. Nice wiggle work there Herbie.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2015 at 11:29am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 11:26am: Svengali wrote on Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:31pm: Freediver and its ilk has created a culture of hostility to Islam and its adherents without regard to the fact that 99.999% of adherents to Islam are decent and peaceful people... Every poll of Muslims in western society has shown an 'alarming' percentage of them whose opinions differ radically from those of the mainstream about the moral justification for jihad terrorism against western targets. A poll taken in the UK of Muslim opinion after 9/11 showed only 10% of those polled were wholly and completely on the side of the west. You need to do some Googling, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of these polling results have become 'lost' in order to appease certain 'sensitivities'. Convenient, can't find the polls, they've been deleted. Nice wiggle work there Herbie.

A lot of strange things happen in Herbert's mind when he isn't pervertedly fantasizing about Bindi.

An idle mind is the devil's playground.

ian wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: I'll jump on the war on Islam bandwagon when they take away something that really matters, until then I'll sit back and watch the shenanigans. Have they taken away or even tried to take away anything that's important to your lifestyle yet?....and don't come back with that nonsense about Christmas and Easter. Come on Pansi, get real. They took away our right to draw offensive caricatures of the prophet Muhammed and publish them in  a little known foreign cartoon mag  we will never see or wish to. My Saturday nights are ruined.

The irony of the thread title is brilliant.

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:04am:

The irony of the thread title is brilliant.

What have I missed. Whats wrong with eating cheese?  Can someone explain to me why, when some of these terrorised anti muslim fanatics want to insult you they begin their abuse with "cheese eating ..."  OK I admit it, I eat cheese. 

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2015 at 9:14am:

ian wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: I'll jump on the war on Islam bandwagon when they take away something that really matters, until then I'll sit back and watch the shenanigans. Have they taken away or even tried to take away anything that's important to your lifestyle yet?....and don't come back with that nonsense about Christmas and Easter. Come on Pansi, get real. They took away our right to draw offensive caricatures of the prophet Muhammed and publish them in  a little known foreign cartoon mag  we will never see or wish to. My Saturday nights are ruined.

I'm not sure if that was said tongue in cheek ian.

They haven't taken away any rights, that's the point. Anyone is still free to do the cartoon thing, if they so desire and if they're prepared to die for their cause. Personally, I wouldn't.

How far are you prepared to go freediver, to provoke the terrorists?

Would you stand outside the mosque with an Anti-Islam banner? If the terrorist said they'll kill you, would you drop the sign and run or would you stand up for your freedom of speech?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:16am:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:04am: The irony of the thread title is brilliant. What have I missed. Whats wrong with eating cheese?  Can someone explain to me why, when some of these terrorised anti muslim fanatics want to insult you they begin their abuse with "cheese eating ..."  OK I admit it, I eat cheese.

cheese eating surrender monkeys

or

cheese rejecting resistance skunky's

'Massdam' Dutch cheese sold at Woolworths is my current favourite. Sliced thinly and put on warm toast with a topping of thinly-sliced vine-ripened tomatoes is to die for.

Around $8 for a vacuum-sealed wedge that's about an inch wide at the big end.

It might not turn you into a surrender-chimp but I can promise you you'll love it. 

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:17am:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 9:14am: ian wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: I'll jump on the war on Islam bandwagon when they take away something that really matters, until then I'll sit back and watch the shenanigans. Have they taken away or even tried to take away anything that's important to your lifestyle yet?....and don't come back with that nonsense about Christmas and Easter. Come on Pansi, get real. They took away our right to draw offensive caricatures of the prophet Muhammed and publish them in  a little known foreign cartoon mag  we will never see or wish to. My Saturday nights are ruined. I'm not sure if that was said tongue in cheek ian. They haven't taken away any rights, that's the point. Anyone is still free to do the cartoon thing, if they so desire and if they're prepared to die for their cause. Personally, I wouldn't. How far are you prepared to go freediver, to provoke the terrorists? Would you stand outside the mosque with an Anti-Islam banner? If the terrorist said they'll kill you, would you drop the sign and run or would you stand up for your freedom of speech?

Protesting is just the beginning Pansi. Whatever it takes. We have slaughtered millions of people in the past to defend our way of life.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Protesting is just the beginning Pansi. Whatever it takes. We have slaughtered millions of people in the past to defend our way of life.

And let's not forget the millions of decent westerners who gave their lives in wars to defend western democracy and freedoms against fascist ideologies such as Islam.

I wonder if Pansi actually wants it to get to the stage of fighting WWIII along religious lines rather than standing up for freedom of speech now.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkeys

The Anglophone stereotype that France sucks at war and surrenders at the drop of a hat... and needs the Anglophone countries to save them!
One would suspect this trope came about due to the fact that, for about the past 200 years, France has had a rough recent record, perceived to have lost or needed to be bailed out of all four of the major wars it has participated in (The Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the First World War, and Second World War). Funnily enough, this trope only came to prominence in 2003, following France's vociferous objections to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. While it's true that there was an under-current of 'the French are cowards' before, the prior focus was mainly on their perceived lack of gratitude.
Regardless, the perception of France as a nation of cowards incapable of winning a war could not be further from the truth.
France is one of the largest and most powerful countries on the continent, and it didn't get that way because it was bad at war. The only reason why France isn't a Europe-sized blob is simple: everybody has ganged up on the French at some point in time. Even then, their considerable resources and enormous populationnote  up until the mid-19th century meant that they could recover from wars more quickly than their rivals, who sometimes nearly bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with French military spendingnote . By the time Napoleon Bonaparte was finally defeated and removed from power by the Seventh Coalition, the French had been at war with themselves and everyone else for over twenty years, during which they had managed to conquer most of Europe, fought countless battles, and generally left the continent in a giant mess.
Traditionally, France was the military terror of Europe. Today, in addition to maintaining Western Europe's largest military, the country also possesses the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Saying that the French have a considerable appetite for war is not an exaggeration: they invested much energy in developing new methods of waging war. They wrote many, many books on waging war. From armoured knights and castles, to muskets and cannon, much of what we associate with medieval and gunpowder warfare came from France. Their enthusiasm for fighting only became dampened by the end of World War I. Over the course of four years, roughly 1.4 million French soldiers died in combatnote , with another 4 million physically (and mentally) scarred by the horrors of industrial-age warfare. France had lost so many men that, when World War II came around, the country had barely managed to recover: the population of France at the time was exactly the same as it was in 1914.
Basically it's no coincidence that most English military terms are actually French words, such as "Artillery," "Battle," "Siege," "Cavalry," "Armor," and many more. Given the sacrifices made during the great wars of the 20th century, any (serious) insinuation of cowardice is both erroneous and disrespectful.
For reference, the phrase "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys" was coined in 1995 by Ken Keeler, a writer for the television series The Simpsons.

Nonsense.

When Hitler entered the off-limits Rhineland just before the war ~ instead of driving them back across the boundary signed at the Treaty of Versailles, the French military command sat on their arse and hoped appeasement would soften any further aggressive intentions that Hitler might be entertaining.

And then later, they created Vichy France and the dreaded Milice française.

And then Churchill had to sink their navy because the navy command wouldn't hand it over to the British when this was asked of them. The Germans were racing to get to the Navy yards so they could commandeer the French fleet.

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:57am:

I wonder if Pansi actually wants it to get to the stage of fighting WWIII along religious lines rather than standing up for freedom of speech now.

I doubt that calling for peace and a little consideration for all involved will alter the inexorable slide into WW II - just around the corner...  the lines are being drawn without the help of Pansi, and will follow their inevitable path to doom....

But blame her not for trying.. I don't think it is appeasement.... but a plea for reason and forebearance....

Won't help though...

Quote:

I don't think it is appeasement.... but a plea for reason and forebearance....

Abandoning our freedom of speech because of a bunch of lunatics in the middle east is not reasonable. Never has been, never will be. The only thing stopping this from escalating is the ability of many Muslims to comprehend their own impotence. Letting them think they can push the west around like this will just make them want more.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:57am: I wonder if Pansi actually wants it to get to the stage of fighting WWIII along religious lines rather than standing up for freedom of speech now. I doubt that calling for peace and a little consideration for all involved will alter the inexorable slide into WW II - just around the corner...  the lines are being drawn without the help of Pansi, and will follow their inevitable path to doom.... But blame her not for trying.. I don't think it is appeasement.... but a plea for reason and forebearance.... Won't help though...

dont make me laugh grap.. we are only on a two bit forum in the middle of nowhere...we have no influence over anything sunshine.. get used to it...


freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Abandoning our freedom of speech because of a bunch of lunatics in the middle east is not reasonable. Never has been, never will be. The only thing stopping this from escalating is the ability of many Muslims to comprehend their own impotence. Letting them think they can push the west around like this will just make them want more.

when you read idiotic comments like that.. you know no one has any hope of dealing with LUNATICS  the Australian kind... ::) ::)

they see throwing petrol on the fire will show them whos boss....a bit like a Rambo movie maybe they watched too many... ;D ;D

hahaha to stop printing an offensive cartoon is now abandoning our FoS .. which we never had in the first place...its the same as that civilisation comment.... ::) ::)

but I will leave it to those who feel threatened if this cartoon is stopped......I feel sorry for them...but it their right to feel threatened and we are lucky to know that they will FIGHT for all of us when the time comes first in line I am sure..... ;) ;)

Cods you seem to think your way will produce the better outcome. So why do you completely refuse, despite me asking dozens of times, to discuss what you think the likely consequences of your spineless appeasement would be?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:54am:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:49am: Protesting is just the beginning Pansi. Whatever it takes. We have slaughtered millions of people in the past to defend our way of life. And let's not forget the millions of decent westerners who gave their lives in wars to defend western democracy and freedoms against fascist ideologies such as Islam.

I dont think we do forget do we?? Anzac Day Poppy Day.

the point is... what did they die for???.....are we at peace???.. do we have REAL FoS?>..can you abuse your neighbour or him you any old time one feels like it??>..

without any consequences I mean...

I dont know about you herb.. but I have never had a Muslim knock on my door and try to shove their ideologies down my throat, like I have by certain westerners you refer too.

I have even had to be rather rude to some of them.. they are so persistent..

also I didnt know we fought Muslims I thought it was the Germans and the Communists...

where did I get that idea from?.

cods wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:54am: freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:49am: Protesting is just the beginning Pansi. Whatever it takes. We have slaughtered millions of people in the past to defend our way of life. And let's not forget the millions of decent westerners who gave their lives in wars to defend western democracy and freedoms against fascist ideologies such as Islam. I dont think we do forget do we?? Anzac Day Poppy Day. the point is... what did they die for???.....are we at peace???.. do we have REAL FoS?>..can you abuse your neighbour or him you any old time one feels like it??>.. without any consequences I mean... I dont know about you herb.. but I have never had a Muslim knock on my door and try to shove their ideologies down my throat, like I have by certain westerners you refer too. I have even had to be rather rude to some of them.. they are so persistent.. also I didnt know we fought Muslims I thought it was the Germans and the Communists... where did I get that idea from?.

Wise words cods.  Thanks, I enjoyed the read.  :)

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 7:17am: How far are you prepared to go freediver, to provoke the terrorists? Would you stand outside the mosque with an Anti-Islam banner? If the terrorist said they'll kill you, would you drop the sign and run or would you stand up for your freedom of speech? Protesting is just the beginning Pansi. Whatever it takes. We have slaughtered millions of people in the past to defend our way of life.

Are you actively protesting freediver?

The Muslims had their protest telling you they want you to leave their prophet alone. Apparently 800 Muslims with 14 suspected anti Muslim campaigners. Goes to show no one is really passionate, except behind the safety of their computer.

When are you going to face them and tell them you won't?

By being silent, you are appeasing them, are you not?

It's not good enough to tell others to do it, you must take the lead.

My life will go on regardless of whether I insult a prophet or not, it's no big deal to me, however your life will never be the same if you cannot read cartoons insulting Muhammed, so it's entirely up to you to fight for your so called freedom of speech.

I hope we are going to hear about your adventure in the mosque or at the next Islam rally.

There's a difference between it being unlawful in a western society to lampoon religious figures ~ and it being lawful.

That's the whole point of the argument.

Does the west revert back a few centuries to make blasphemy a jailing offence, or do we accept that rationalist secularism now dictates judicial policy on this?

#Iwillderidewithyou

Quote:

I dont think we do forget do we?? Anzac Day Poppy Day.

Not going to work on ANZAC day is not the same as remembering what they died for cods. You would throw their sacrifice away and welcome Hitler back under a different name.


Quote:

I dont know about you herb.. but I have never had a Muslim knock on my door and try to shove their ideologies down my throat, like I have by certain westerners you refer too.

Do you think this should be banned cods?


Quote:

also I didnt know we fought Muslims I thought it was the Germans and the Communists...

I don't think our soldiers died so that spineless appeasers could welcome a different label of fascist and throw our rights away at their feet. If we have to fight another war every time a different bunch of lunatics dreams up a different kind of fascism because we are too stupid to see it for what it is, then we are doomed.


Quote:

When are you going to face them and tell them you won't?

When are you going to own your own opinions pansi rather than trying desperately to change the topic every time you are challenged on them? You mock others for being brave behind a computer. You manage the worst kind of spineless appeasement from the safety of a keyboard.


Quote:

My life will go on regardless of whether I insult a prophet or not, it's no big deal to me

A lot of spineless appeasers said the same thing about the Nazis. At the time our soldiers had not yet fought a war against the Nazis. Would you have been equally spineless and oblivious to the threat because it had a new label?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 6:56am:

There's a difference between it being unlawful in a western society to lampoon religious figures ~ and it being lawful. That's the whole point of the argument. Does the west revert back a few centuries to make blasphemy a jailing offence, or do we accept that rationalist secularism now dictates judicial policy on this?

I think WE GROW UP HERB.. well some of us do..

if you find insulting people because insulting someones god is insulting those people who find it insulting..

is good for your ego..

then by all means keep doing it..

some of us think insulting for the sake of insulting and bullying...

is not the way to go..

others feel their life is being impinged to the point of suffocation...which i find extraordinary bordering on paranoia....

they enjoy ridiculing and tormenting others.. that for them

its not for me....

I dont like bullies of any kind...

and neither does Pope Frances..

its all in the mind of course...

if you fear we will go back in  time.. ::) ::)

lose our civilisation as we know it.. ::) ::) ::)

lose your freedom of speech... which ever one you believe you have.. ::) ::) ::) ::)


will be asked to hand over your lunch money next.
then by all means... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

then  carry on

me I dont see the sky falling. ;D

Quote:

I think WE GROW UP HERB.. well some of us do..

Into cheese eating surrender monkeys? Who are incapable of backing our position beyond repeating a small number of idiotic mantras, interspersed with half formed sentences and inane drivel?

cods wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:32am:

I think WE GROW UP HERB.. well some of us do..

Eat My Cheese, codsey-baby! That was a deliberate verbal lampooning cartoon of me, wasn't it?


I must confess to having some sympathy with the Muslims on this.

Gratuitously making fun of the prophet (pbuh) with disrespectful cartoons whilst knowing perfectly well that this carries the same impact for them as you telling someone you're going to "rape his mother" ~ is fairly unpleasant to say the least.

But it shouldn't be illegal, per se.

Quote:

Gratuitously making fun of the prophet (pbuh) with disrespectful cartoons whilst knowing perfectly well that this carries the same impact for them as you telling someone you're going to rape his mother"

It is not the same thing Herb. They can hold whatever views they want about their prophet being beyond criticism. What they cannot do is demand we share those views.

ISIS, who inspired these attacks, is actually raping people's mothers, and being quite open about it. These are the people who cods, pansi and phem think will leave us alone if we merely sacrifice our freedom of speech for them.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:45am:

cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 9:32am: I think WE GROW UP HERB.. well some of us do.. Eat My Cheese, codsey-baby! That was a deliberate verbal lampooning cartoon of me, wasn't it? I must confess to having some sympathy with the Muslims on this. Gratuitously making fun of the prophet (pbuh) with disrespectful cartoons whilst knowing perfectly well that this carries the same impact for them as you telling someone you're going to "rape his mother" ~ is fairly unpleasant to say the least. But it shouldn't be illegal, per se.

I didnt know the extremists were asking for it to be made ILLEGAL...

common decency works for me....

we must get past this bullying..

you cannot say

telling someone you're going to "rape his mother" ~ is fairly unpleasant to say the least.

and you will/could be banned for this..

on the other hand if its a drawing depicting Muhammad having sex with a pig for instance thats ok...


I feel we are all human even our extremists we have to show some respect.. and maybe they will get the m essage...we are open to our own faults...and we are open to fixing them...in the hope it will rub off onto them...well nothing like HOPE is there..

it doesnt work on this forum..BUT doesnt mean one should give up

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

Quote: Gratuitously making fun of the prophet (pbuh) with disrespectful cartoons whilst knowing perfectly well that this carries the same impact for them as you telling someone you're going to rape his mother" It is not the same thing Herb. They can hold whatever views they want about their prophet being beyond criticism. What they cannot do is demand we share those views. ISIS, who inspired these attacks, is actually raping people's mothers.

But hang on, let's be fair here. There's no greater Nazi on this board than me, but all of us holding to certain contradictory views cannot be reasonably equated with deliberately publishing stuff that is designed to offend and insult what a section of society believe to be sacred and religiously cherished.

I DON'T think publishing such cartoons should be in violation of the law ~ but I most certainly can sympathise with Muslims thinking it's foul play and a delinquent misuse of journalistic freedom.

Did Charlie Hebdo's cartoons relate to actual events taking place in the Middle East - or was its brief to be simply generally insulting and obnoxious towards Muslims? (I don't know).

I have sat with a room-full of Muslim workmate friends who were appalled at the time of Ayotollah Khomeini when cartoons showed American soldiers sticking the American flag up the Ayotollah's arse in a parody of the famous Iwo Jima classic.

I found that hilarious, and had to bite down hard on my tongue, but the guys around me were utterly mortified by this, and none of them were Iranian.

Quote:

I didnt know the extremists were asking for it to be made ILLEGAL...

Even mainstream Islamic organisations (eg the OIC) are asking for it to be illegal. The extremists are not directly asking this, because they are taking the law into their own hands. They don't care what the law says, they will kill anyone who stands in their way.


Quote:

But hang on, let's be fair here. There's no greater Nazi on this board than me, but all of us holding to certain contradictory views cannot be reasonably equated with deliberately publishing stuff that is designed to offend and insult what a section of society believe to be sacred and religiously cherished.

Plenty of the apologists do exactly that to other religions here. The only difference is that Muslims go on a violent rampage. You are assuming that because the Muslims cannot control themselves and go on violent rampages that they are more entitled to respect for their views and take more offense at what freedom of speech protects.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:58am:

I have sat with a room-full of Muslim workmate friends who were appalled at the time of Ayotollah Khomeini when cartoons showed American soldiers sticking the American flag up the Ayotollah's arse in a parody of the famous Iwo Jima classic. I found that hilarious, and had to bite down hard on my tongue, but the guys around me were utterly mortified by this, and none of them were Iranian

do you still find it humous herb??

its to be noticed you dont like being teased by greg do you??>...do you find that a sort of bullying???

one or two come out and support him... does it upset you well I presume it does as you have started threads on the subject....

maybe if you look at what those muslims were upset about and then look at what upsets you....

you will find a common denominator!!!!

bullying ridiculing upsetting.insulting..maybe its just a shot.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:01am:

Quote: But hang on, let's be fair here. There's no greater Nazi on this board than me, but all of us holding to certain contradictory views cannot be reasonably equated with deliberately publishing stuff that is designed to offend and insult what a section of society believe to be sacred and religiously cherished. Plenty of the apologists do exactly that to other religions here. The only difference is that Muslims go on a violent rampage.

Should these violent rampages be illegal? As long as they don't damage property or target people for a beating ~ then let them rampage.

The riot the Muslims chucked in Sydney a couple of years ago was because the police were ordered to stop them.

When will they ever learn?

They should have let this Muslim crowd do its walk-and-its-talk and let it run its course.

They were heading for the park to make some rousing speeches and chant "Allahu Akbar!" a few times. That's what the cops should have let them do.

Quote:

Should these violent rampages be illegal? As long as they don't damage property or target people for a beating ~ then let them rampage.

OK, so only the peaceful violent rampages should be legal. I think we have some common ground.


Quote:

The riot the Muslims chucked in Sydney a couple of years ago was because the police were ordered to stop them. When will they ever learn?

Yes, crazy Muslims.


Quote:

They should have let this Muslim crowd do its walk-and-its-talk and let it run its course.

Oh, you meant the police. They should know better than to get in the way of Muslims. Being crazy, we should let them do whatever they want. While we're at it, why not open the asylum doors? Why shouldn't we have crazy people taking a crap in the mall?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

OK, so only the peaceful violent rampages should be legal. I think we have some common ground.

It's a philosophy I learnt from mums with their hysterical brats in supermarkets.

With utter calm these mums simply wait-out the violent tantrums chucked by their ankle-biters when they're denied a chocolate bar or a packet of sherbet with a straw, etc. They simply wait patiently for the storm to use up all its energy.


freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

Oh, you meant the police. They should know better than to get in the way of Muslims.

Every cowboy knows you ride flank with the stampeding herd until they've calmed down and are more amenable to being gently corralled and pacified.

It's better to Run with the Bulls a la Pomplona than put up obstacles to thwart their passage to wherever they're going.

Canute knew the same thing about the tide.

The police should have 'rode herd' on this Muslim protest group, gently prodding them here and there to remain away from the shop windows.

But they CONFRONTED them ~ stupidly and ignorantly .. and of course the inevitable happened.

Dogs, capsicum, kicks and punches, batons, screams of "Allahu Akbar!" and small children being photographed holding up placards saying behead all those who insult the prophet (pbuh).

The police showed themselves to be totally ignorant of the psychology of the mob. A mob is more than the sum total of its component parts. It is an entity all of its own.

Don't get me started.


freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

Being crazy, we should let them do whatever they want.

Now you're being petulant. Nobody has suggested any such thing.

Quote:

With utter calm these mums simply wait-out the violent tantrums chucked by their ankle-biters when they're denied a chocolate bar or a packet of sherbet with a straw, etc. They simply wait patiently for the storm to use up all its energy.

You should tell that to the swat team next time they are tackling a Muslim nutter with a gun. Just wait till he runs out of ammo and victims.


Quote:

Every cowboy knows you ride flank with the stampeding herd until they've calmed down and are more amenable to being gently corralled and pacified.

More useless analogies. Muslims are babies. Muslims are stampeding cows that we have no hope of controlling.


Quote:

Canute knew the same thing about the tide.

A third useless analogy. You are on a roll here.


Quote:

The police should have 'rode herd' on this Muslim protest group, gently prodding them here and there to remain away from the shop windows.

Yeah, that'll work. Let the crowd of lunatics wear themselves out while you gently prod them whenever they get out of line.


Quote:

Dogs, capsicum, kicks and punches, batons, screams of "Allahu Akbar!" and small children being photographed holding up placards saying behead all those who insult the prophet (pbuh).

Careful, you'll give people flashbacks.


Quote:

Now you're being petulant. Nobody has suggested any such thing.

Sorry, I left out the gentle prodding bit. How about a few soft caresses? We can call you the angry crowd whisperer and send you in with a feather duster and horse whip to stop them breaking anything until they run out of steam.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Sorry, I left out the gentle prodding bit. How about a few soft caresses? We can call you the angry crowd whisperer and send you in with a feather duster and horse whip to stop them breaking anything until they run out of steam.

'Crowd whisperer' ~ I like that. It's got potential.

"Send in the Crowd Whisperers, Police Commissioner! They'll know how to tame this rampant multi-legged beast coming down Sydney's George Street".

These crowd engineers would then infiltrate the mob and start making quiet suggestions of a pacifist nature to those around them. Redirect their tunnel-vision to alternative perspectives.

That's what horse-breakers do. They infiltrate tame horses into the feral pack to act as pacifiers.

So long as we don't start thinking of them as an angry mob of crazy people, we should be fine.

Karnal wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

I blame Islam. Cods was always such a reasonable poster in.the past. I wonder if she’s married one of them.

cods wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:54am:

I feel we are all human even our extremists we have to show some respect.. and maybe they will get the message...we are open to our own faults...and we are open to fixing them...in the hope it will rub off onto them...well nothing like HOPE is there.. it doesnt work on this forum..BUT doesnt mean one should give up

The West has never had enemies - Ottomans, Communists, Fascists, now Islamists again - only friends whose grievances we have failed to accommodate. The West must tolerate all its enemies... oops, sorry.... misunderstood friends.

cods wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:08am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 9:58am: I have sat with a room-full of Muslim workmate friends who were appalled at the time of Ayotollah Khomeini when cartoons showed American soldiers sticking the American flag up the Ayotollah's arse in a parody of the famous Iwo Jima classic. I found that hilarious, and had to bite down hard on my tongue, but the guys around me were utterly mortified by this, and none of them were Iranian do you still find it humous herb?? its to be noticed you dont like being teased by greg do you??>...do you find that a sort of bullying??? one or two come out and support him... does it upset you well I presume it does as you have started threads on the subject.... maybe if you look at what those muslims were upset about and then look at what upsets you.... you will find a common denominator!!!! bullying ridiculing upsetting.insulting..maybe its just a shot.

They can be upset. But murdering because they are upset by cartoons, and then defending and excusing those murders because of the 'hurt',  puts them all beyond the pale.

The should have been an IMMEDIATE Muslim campaign, along the lines of the Lind Cafe solidarity, with #Iwillderidewithyou.

THAT'S what Muslims should have done by the million to be creditable.  But of course they didn't. Even if Muslims murder 17 people over cartoons, Muslims MUST remain the victims.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 2:39pm:

So long as we don't start thinking of them as an angry mob of crazy people, we should be fine.

Correct.

As a Muslim Crowd Whisperer I would be handing out falafels and shish-kebabs just to quieten them down while their mouths are full.

And then I'd tell them I'd received direct instructions from the Minister of Employment that if they disperse and go home within the next half hour they would all receive a $500 bonus in their Unemploymemt Benefits and in their Disability Support Allowances.

90% of the crowd would then disappear very smartly, with the remaining 10% posing no threat at all to persons or property.

cods wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:08am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 9:58am: I found that hilarious, and had to bite down hard on my tongue, but the guys around me were utterly mortified by this, and none of them were Iranian ... do you still find it humous herb??

More than ever.

8 million people marched across France just recently in support of satirical humour and the freedom to laugh at our enemies.


cods wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:08am:

its to be noticed you dont like being teased by greg do you??>...do you find that a sort of bullying??? one or two come out and support him... does it upset you well I presume it does as you have started threads on the subject.... maybe if you look at what those muslims were upset about and then look at what upsets you.... you will find a common denominator!!!! bullying ridiculing upsetting.insulting..maybe its just a shot.

Ho-hum ... Whatever, codsey.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 10:08am: ... do you still find it humous herb?? More than ever.

Hence the falafels and shish-kebabs eh?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 8:14pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 7:35pm: cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 10:08am: ... do you still find it humous herb?? More than ever. Hence the falafels and shish-kebabs eh?

You're being inscrutable. I don't see the connection.

I just wanted cods to know I still find a flag planted up the Ayatollah's arse humous. It was a cartoon in the Daily Telegraph by Warren.

Hang on ... the penny's dropped. You mean hummus?  ;D ;D ;D Good one.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 10:08am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 9:58am: I found that hilarious, and had to bite down hard on my tongue, but the guys around me were utterly mortified by this, and none of them were Iranian ... do you still find it humous herb?? More than ever. 8 million people marched across France just recently in support of satirical humour and the freedom to laugh at our enemies. REALLY? cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 10:08am: its to be noticed you dont like being teased by greg do you??>...do you find that a sort of bullying??? one or two come out and support him... does it upset you well I presume it does as you have started threads on the subject.... maybe if you look at what those muslims were upset about and then look at what upsets you.... you will find a common denominator!!!! bullying ridiculing upsetting.insulting..maybe its just a shot. Ho-hum ... Whatever, codsey.

ok I should have said unless its gregsy doing the insulting..... I might give gregsy the ole COM' ON
next time... justy to see you fall about laughing.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 5:24am:

freediver wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 8:14pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 7:35pm: cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 10:08am: ... do you still find it humous herb?? More than ever. Hence the falafels and shish-kebabs eh? You're being inscrutable. I don't see the connection. I just wanted cods to know I still find a flag planted up the Ayatollah's arse humous. It was a cartoon in the Daily Telegraph by Warren. Hang on ... the penny's dropped. You mean hummus?  ;D ;D ;D Good one.

oh the good old typo...

hilarious...so exciting...

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 7:36am:

oh the good old typo... hilarious...so exciting...

I never mentioned it until it dropped neatly into place as a 'hummus' joke.

Relax, codsey. We're all guilty of typos (some more than others)  :P

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Sorry, I left out the gentle prodding bit. How about a few soft caresses? We can call you the angry crowd whisperer and send you in with a feather duster and horse whip to stop them breaking anything until they run out of steam. 'Crowd whisperer' ~ I like that. It's got potential. "Send in the Crowd Whisperers, Police Commissioner! They'll know how to tame this rampant multi-legged beast coming down Sydney's George Street". These crowd engineers would then infiltrate the mob and start making quiet suggestions of a pacifist nature to those around them. Redirect their tunnel-vision to alternative perspectives. That's what horse-breakers do. They infiltrate tame horses into the feral pack to act as pacifiers.

Not Bad Herb,  youre using my analogies. ;)
standing your ground against an angry mob is indeed folly.
And , yes, you have to outsmart a horse, you'll never out muscle one.

So a brumby mob that must be tamed.
How do we do this.
As you say, infiltrate, and let the mob exhaust itself.
A mob, when it gets tired will "look for answers"
If you release pressure at the right time, you can manipulate behaviour very easily provided 2 things.
1  you can read body language
2 your timing is impeccable.

So when the mob starts to slow you give them space. if they get more rowdy, you increase the pressure ever so slightly, drive them a bit more.

Most mobs of people or horses will eventually "just give up" as long as you play "pete persistence"
impatience is death to training and death to education.

There is something more though.
Once the brumby mob are subdued, the jackeroos will separate off the mare and foals (women and children).
The stallions , unfortunately , have to be destroyed.
I know of a farmer in the NT who secured a brumby mob and the stallion escaped.
some 3 months later, that stallion emerged from the bush and lifting him into the air like a rag doll and stamped him. he spent a long time in hospital.

Now, we obviously cant send the muslim men to the doggers but there is a problem about "how to change their behaviour in the long term"

One for you to ponder.

The other strategy used by farmers in the NT would also not be considered politically palateable , but it is a common one.

They will simply shoot the brumby males and then release a good quality passive "breeder stallion" with the mob.
something quiet like a whaler, or a stockhorse or clydesdale.

Again, i dont think you would find a way of doing this (lol) but these are the strategies used in the real world and strategies that have proved very successful in promoting a less dangerous and more productive environment

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 7:40am:

cods wrote on Jan 26th, 2015 at 7:36am: oh the good old typo... hilarious...so exciting... I never mentioned it until it dropped neatly into place as a 'hummus' joke. Relax, codsey. We're all guilty of typos (some more than others)  :P

im not upset just think a topic sometimes is worth sticking too..I guess its all about what more important!!!!....lol


aquascoot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 8:11am:

There is something more though. Once the brumby mob are subdued, the jackeroos will separate off the mare and foals (women and children). The stallions , unfortunately , have to be destroyed.

isnt that what we are trying to do with our bombs and ak47.. ::) ::)

weve tried shouting at them...

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26th, 2015 at 7:40am: cods wrote on Jan 26th, 2015 at 7:36am: oh the good old typo... hilarious...so exciting... I never mentioned it until it dropped neatly into place as a 'hummus' joke. Relax, codsey. We're all guilty of typos (some more than others)  :P im not upset just think a topic sometimes is worth sticking too..I guess its all about what more important!!!!....lol aquascoot wrote on Jan 26th, 2015 at 8:11am: There is something more though. Once the brumby mob are subdued, the jackeroos will separate off the mare and foals (women and children). The stallions , unfortunately , have to be destroyed. isnt that what we are trying to do with our bombs and ak47.. ::) ::) weve tried shouting at them...

re education is very hard work cods.
If not done properly and consistently, theres always the danger of a catastrophic failure...a life threatening buck, bolt or rear.
Its why it is SO MUCH SAFER to start with a foal (or child) and teach it good habits from birth.
I could gaurantee one of mine, trained properly and consistently from birth is bulletproof.
I could never give such a gaurantee for one that was a feral and had been retrained.
Its why the feral training just has to be stamped out.
If you want to cure islamic extremism, then you will have to stop the preachers of hate in the madrasses as once a bad lesson is learnt , it can never be fully unlearnt ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 8:11am:

They will simply shoot the brumby males and then release a good quality passive "breeder stallion" with the mob. something quiet like a whaler, or a stockhorse or clydesdale. Again, i dont think you would find a way of doing this (lol) but these are the strategies used in the real world and strategies that have proved very successful in promoting a less dangerous and more productive environment

Some good horse sense there, equinescoot.

Back in the old days the Turks used to raid Serbia and Macedonia and kidnap all the young boys they could get their hands on.

They would take them back to Turkey and place them with families to be brought up as Turks. They were treated well and with kindness while learning to be Muslims with an allegiance to Turkey.

When they had been thoroughly indoctrinated they were then sent back to live with their families in Yugoslavia.

It worked a treat.

We could kidnap the young boys of Muslim families here and send them off to live with families in America's Deep South where the Bible Belt reigns supreme.

Just a thought.  8-)

Maybe put Yadda in charge of that program.

Yadda ~ Minister for Bible-F***ing Young Muslim Minds.  :)

Yes - that's just what we need - a central processing centre and a group of satellite re-education camps for those deemed not worthy of Australian society....

Next get the property and superannuation and dollar hoarders out there planting rice to learn the way of the poor so they will no longer pontificate on 'leaners' etc.....

You can see where Pol Pot was coming from - but his execution (poor choice of words) of the policy was pretty bad....

Heeeey! What's this persecution of monkeys here?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/avatars/UserAvatars/The_Grappler.gif

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 26th, 2015 at 8:11am: They will simply shoot the brumby males and then release a good quality passive "breeder stallion" with the mob. something quiet like a whaler, or a stockhorse or clydesdale. Again, i dont think you would find a way of doing this (lol) but these are the strategies used in the real world and strategies that have proved very successful in promoting a less dangerous and more productive environment Some good horse sense there, equinescoot. Back in the old days the Turks used to raid Serbia and Macedonia and kidnap all the young boys they could get their hands on. They would take them back to Turkey and place them with families to be brought up as Turks. They were treated well and with kindness while learning to be Muslims with an allegiance to Turkey. When they had been thoroughly indoctrinated they were then sent back to live with their families in Yugoslavia. It worked a treat. We could kidnap the young boys of Muslim families here and send them off to live with families in America's Deep South where the Bible Belt reigns supreme. Just a thought.  8-) Maybe put Yadda in charge of that program. Yadda ~ Minister for Bible-F***ing Young Muslim Minds.  :)

I'm not sure about Yadda.
He seems a home schooled kinda guy

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 26^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 26th, 2015 at 8:11am: They will simply shoot the brumby males and then release a good quality passive "breeder stallion" with the mob. something quiet like a whaler, or a stockhorse or clydesdale. Again, i dont think you would find a way of doing this (lol) but these are the strategies used in the real world and strategies that have proved very successful in promoting a less dangerous and more productive environment Some good horse sense there, equinescoot. Back in the old days the Turks used to raid Serbia and Macedonia and kidnap all the young boys they could get their hands on. They would take them back to Turkey and place them with families to be brought up as Turks. They were treated well and with kindness while learning to be Muslims with an allegiance to Turkey. When they had been thoroughly indoctrinated they were then sent back to live with their families in Yugoslavia. It worked a treat. We could kidnap the young boys of Muslim families here and send them off to live with families in America's Deep South where the Bible Belt reigns supreme. Just a thought.  8-) Maybe put Yadda in charge of that program. Yadda ~ Minister for Bible-F***ing Young Muslim Minds.  :)

:)