Sir Salman Rushdie

[local]

[QUOTE=Toodles McGinty;6826813]'Offended'? I've made 3 posts on this thread openly criticising extremists in Islam. And other religions.

What I haven't done is advocate 'hurting them'. As I don't know who 'they' are. Or should we hurt all foreigners, just in case?

Nobody is standing around 'obeying their rules'. I quite clearly stated, more than once, that the laws of any country come before any religious laws. And as far as 'our country' is concerned, we are a multicultural country, there are generations of people who aren't white Anglo-Saxon Christians. All of whom have rubbed along fairly well for centuries. This is 'our country' for them too.

You've turned a thread criticising religious extremists into some Britain First tirade where you think we need to defend our country against all-comers. Some kind of crusade against all those foreigners who apparently want to 'destroy our way of life'. If there are Islamic State freaks plotting to somehow turn this country into a satellite of Mecca, leave it to the authorities. We don't need to take up arms to defend this country. Not against imaginary brown bogeymen 'coming over here'. Who exactly do you think an old fool like yourself is going to fight?

You're wanging on about 'woke culture'. What 'woke culture'? Just because some people are offended about racism doesn't make them 'woke'. It makes them anti-racist.

As far as 'hiding behind a bottle' is concerned, that's a handy, throwaway bit of misogynism used before on here. I can disagree with racist pieces of $h!t without Dutch courage. I don't need a drink to face some anonymous, Neanderthal, keyboard warrior crank.[/QUOT

-------------------------------------------------------------------



Another strange twisting assault on the Prof.

He is entitled to his let's say slanted opinion ( which I don't agree with) just as Salman was/is entitled to his which many in the Muslim world found offensive.

And anyone a bit bored can find a few on here getting rather excitable over comments made about Muslims that would not have raised a peep when comparable comments are made about some Christian garb.


Might I just point out that the "bottle" can be enjoyed by either sex it's not really misogynistic is it?

[Toodles McGinty]

Will her trusty brush be enough to repel the brown hordes?


Attachment 214679

I bet her wrinkled stockings would put them off for a while.

[duncet]

What I cannot understand is that the attacker, who carried out the deed, has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and not guilty to wounding. The fact that a hall full of people witnessed the event, something doesn't quite appear logical.

[Hector]

What I cannot understand is that the attacker, who carried out the deed, has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and not guilty to wounding. The fact that a hall full of people witnessed the event, something doesn't quite appear logical.

He views himself as a soldier in a just war. Soldiers who kill in war do not believe that they are commiting murder. That's very logical.

[local]

What I cannot understand is that the attacker, who carried out the deed, has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and not guilty to wounding. The fact that a hall full of people witnessed the event, something doesn't quite appear logical.

Entirely understandable, if his lawyer is to find any holes in the process then the little treasure can make his mind up once the process is gone through.

[Alikado]

What I cannot understand is that the attacker, who carried out the deed, has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and not guilty to wounding. The fact that a hall full of people witnessed the event, something doesn't quite appear logical.

It doesn't matter how many witnesses or how much evidence there is it is always upto the prosecution to present a convincing case to judge / jury to convict.

[Desert Region]

'Offended'? I've made 3 posts on this thread openly criticising extremists in Islam. And other religions.

What I haven't done is advocate 'hurting them'. As I don't know who 'they' are. Or should we hurt all foreigners, just in case?

Nobody is standing around 'obeying their rules'. I quite clearly stated, more than once, that the laws of any country come before any religious laws. And as far as 'our country' is concerned, we are a multicultural country, there are generations of people who aren't white Anglo-Saxon Christians. All of whom have rubbed along fairly well for centuries. This is 'our country' for them too.

You've turned a thread criticising religious extremists into some Britain First tirade where you think we need to defend our country against all-comers. Some kind of crusade against all those foreigners who apparently want to 'destroy our way of life'. If there are Islamic State freaks plotting to somehow turn this country into a satellite of Mecca, leave it to the authorities. We don't need to take up arms to defend this country. Not against imaginary brown bogeymen 'coming over here'. Who exactly do you think an old fool like yourself is going to fight?

You're wanging on about 'woke culture'. What 'woke culture'? Just because some people are offended about racism doesn't make them 'woke'. It makes them anti-racist.

As far as 'hiding behind a bottle' is concerned, that's a handy, throwaway bit of misogynism used before on here. I can disagree with racist pieces of $h!t without Dutch courage. I don't need a drink to face some anonymous, Neanderthal, keyboard warrior crank.

-------------------------------------------------------------------



Another strange twisting assault on the Prof.

He is entitled to his let's say slanted opinion ( which I don't agree with) just as Salman was/is entitled to his which many in the Muslim world found offensive.

And anyone a bit bored can find a few on here getting rather excitable over comments made about Muslims that would not have raised a peep when comparable comments are made about some Christian garb.


Might I just point out that the "bottle" can be enjoyed by either sex it's not really misogynistic is it?

Well, local, it did cross my mind that said's comments on this thread are mild compared with some of their more extreme comments from times previous.

You say about the "strange twisting" reactions. I'm again noticing that some of the loudest, supposed 'anti-racists' on this forum are actually 'selective anti-racists' that will condemn certain posters' racist views while not saying a dickie bird about other posters' racist views.


The BBC had reported that a councillor...

...has been suspended by the party for accusing the Israeli government of kidnapping Palestinian children to "harvest their organs".

Former Blackburn with Darwen Council executive board member councillor Yusuf Jan-Virmani made the comments at the authority's annual meeting on Thursday.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service said Audley and Queens Park ward's councillor Jan-Virmani said in the debate: "I am not aware of any animal that is so cruel as the Israelis. Not even crocodiles.

"They kidnap the kids and harvest their organs."

Among other responses, Alikado said:

I cannot see anything wrong with what he said, it was only criticism of the Israeli Government.

Nothing Anti Semitic in that, it is only criticism of the Israeli Government, it's the first time I've heard of kids being kidnapped for their organs but that could be breaking news.

Alikado also likes to speculate about the best structure, lampposts or trees, from which to hang Tory MPs. The latest forum chat on killing Tory MPs has centred on burning at the stake and a concern that more barbaric methods also be considered. The 'selective anti racists' completely ignore that.

Said likes to talk about women having their mouths stitched up, and about their 'concern' regards the suicide rates for gay children. The 'selective anti-racists' were quick to condemn that.


As I said at the time:

Yes, H: sadly, stupid racist scum exist in both the far-left and the far-right.

The main point of difference between said and Alikado is that said is a hard-right racist while Alikado is a far-left racist. Both share a fascination with talking about the deaths of those they are opposed to.

It is interesting how discussing the killing of people on this forum seems to be absolutely fine so long as it's about the killing of Tory MPs.

It's as if the murder, in October of last year, of Sir David Amess never happened.

[Toodles McGinty]

Well, local, it did cross my mind that said's comments on this thread are mild compared with some of their more extreme comments from times previous.

You say about the "strange twisting" reactions. I'm again noticing that some of the loudest, supposed 'anti-racists' on this forum are actually 'selective anti-racists' that will condemn certain posters' racist views while not saying a dickie bird about other posters' racist views.

As you've gone to the trouble of correcting Local's tags to include my post, I'll assume you are directing this at me.

First off, can you ask your 'pal' why he bothers answering my posts when he's blocked? And yes, the drinking slurs aren't in themselves mysoginistic. But they only seem to get slung around on here, by 'him' and his buddy Said when aimed at women. When they're aimed at men, I might think otherwise.

As far as racism is concerned, I don't recall the thread you keep going back to, but I'm sure at the time whoever Alikado's post was aimed at roundly condemned idea that Israelis are currently harvesting Palestinian organs. Although they have in the past (Guardian -Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent). Irsaelis aren't a race. Neither are Palestinians. The Israeli pathologist mentioned could have been an Arab for all I know. Or a Christian - also not a race. Or black, or white, or other.

Or as seems to happen regularly, do you think that whomever the post was aimed at is too weak to stand up for themselves? Because if it was aimed at Hamble, I have every confidence she is perfectly capable of shooting down racists. As one who's had many political debates with H, she's more than capable of getting her point across. Better than many on here.

Or H can report the post. Or you can. I'd assume that when the offending post is made, a membership-wide pile-on isn't required. Just as I don't require the entire membership to condemn 'Said' and his bizarre posts. I can handle it myself or I can report him / her.

But it's nice to know that not only are you the guardian of all those you presume are weak and need defending, you are the arbiter of all racism on the forum, adjudging 'mildness' or severity of offending comments.

Alikado also likes to speculate about the best structure, lampposts or trees, from which to hang Tory MPs. The latest forum chat on killing Tory MPs has centred on burning at the stake and a concern that more barbaric methods also be considered. The 'selective anti racists' completely ignore that.

Said likes to talk about women having their mouths stitched up, and about their 'concern' regards the suicide rates for gay children. The 'selective anti-racists' were quick to condemn that.

None of which are racist. The Tories aren't a race. 'Gay' isn't a race.

So what do you want the 'selective anti-racists' to do, exactly? The comments may range from idiot hyperbole, which I'm guilty of, to twisted fantasy. But not racism. And as you patrol the forums seeking the feeble to defend and 'far left racism' to call out, perhaps you can add 'hyperbole' and 'violent fantasy' to your remit. Pretty sure it's still the mod's job, but crack on.

...The main point of difference between said and Alikado is that said is a hard-right racist while Alikado is a far-left racist. Both share a fascination with talking about the deaths of those they are opposed to.

I wouldn't call Alikado 'far-left' really. I've never heard them calling for the nationalisation of every business, or for Communism to be adopted across the board. But I know that the right often cannot make that distinction. I would call 'Said' hard right, agreed.

Shame that on your patrol of the forums, you didn't call out Said's anti-Semitic trope on this thread. Makes you seem terribly selectively anti-racist. But as you really aren't the arbiter of all things racist, selectively or otherwise, we'll let it slide.

[local]

Why do you think you can or indeed should control what I post?

This self appointed censor position you have decided for yourself is particularly odd in a thread about free speech, which for you is the usual free to post what you like or else.

The cancel culture on little old SQL..

Your usually hypocrisy about the right to offend for Salman Rushdie when it suits but if I remember correctly your blonde mist moments about letter box dress is typical.

He hasn't had a fatwa issued for his comments.

Then the usual verbal diarohea you reserve for the Prof which the groupthink jumps on like playground bullies.

Yes he has a habit of putting two size nines in but I'm sure you could rise a little bit above it without such outpourings of bile.

[said]

Wrong. Ahmed Salman Rushdie was born in Bombay on 19 June 1947 during the British Raj, into an Indian Kashmiri Muslim family. They are described as ‘Liberal’ Muslims, a faith he doesn’t follow, now describing himself as a ‘hardline’ atheist.

He may be an atheist - but he still follows the Muslim teachings and his books feature many Muslim leaders. He most certainly is not stupid though, his reputation as an author, that would normally only have interest to Muslims - has netted him $15 Million.

[donkey22]

He may be an atheist - but he still follows the Muslim teachings and his books feature many Muslim leaders. He most certainly is not stupid though, his reputation as an author, that would normally only have interest to Muslims - has netted him $15 Million.

You’ve obviously never read any of his books.
An atheist that follows religious teachings? Your stupidity and ignorance is astounding. You obviously have a dislike of the man, probably on the grounds of his race. The only book that has any references to Muslim leaders that I can think of is The Satanic Verses, and we all know how that went down. The subject matter in most of his novels is incredibly diverse, very few touch on religion.
You should try and overcome your disgusting racist bigotry and give some of his books a go. You’d probably need to keep a dictionary at hand though. They’re full of big words you may struggle with.

[said]

[QUOTE=seivad;

Not so much of the 'old' if you do not mind! Most of you are twenty or more years my senior, so your views are that much more ancient. I believe the last time you resorted to using personal abuse, you facetiously referred to using a Banana?

Some of you are mis-using the term 'racist' When you accuse someone of being 'racist' - you do not realise it - but YOU yourself are, 'racist' because the term refers to owning a sense of superiority over others. To my mind, most of you are using the term as a convenience as opposed to applying the correct grammar by which to explain the situation. If you were subjected to inner city education, it should not be - but it can be excused.