Otta

ernesto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lots of intellectual superiority vibe going on > here > > this is how it all started.... StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how all "what" started exactly? I haven't the foggiest about "what" started, but I do pretty much agree with Che's first line.

"Coffee, bacon and cheese." What, as a combo? Is that popular? (serious question, I don't like coffee so don't know about such things)

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as for the timing being bad - of the top of my > head I can't think when the timing would be any > better > > If a young man is going to be provoked into > terrorism by this then realy you have to say there > is something wrong that could blow anyway. Well yeah, obviously. I'm not suggesting a well balanced member of society will see a cartoon and suddenly decide he needs to martyr himself. But tension is particularly high right now, and the people in those suburbs of Paris are probably not feeling particularly popular at the moment.

One for the Bristol City Two for the boys in red Three for the fans down Ashton Gate We'll follow til we're dead, me boys, we'll follow till we're dead. Best football song ever.

Harry Hill Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas Withnail & I.

Probably not quite in the same league, but this was not an isolated incident (it was the only one where the police were involved), and to be honest I would cower a bit when I saw that look. One time she headbutted the floor so as to make it look like I'd hit her. She was a bit special. Fit though.

Stayed with her though because I was young and in love, and if I'm honest I probably thought I was punching above my weight. I look back all these years later and can't believe I didn't walk away, but when you're in the moment you don't always think rationally.

In about 1999 when I was living in Liverpool I had a row with my girlfriend. She went ape shit and started hitting me (as was her thing), I covered up and she continued. Eventually, being a bit fed up of being hit, I pushed her back (the bed was right behind her so I just pushed her to a sitting position on the bed) and she immediately grabbed the phone and dialled 999. She hung up straight away without saying anything, but sure enough a van arrived a couple of minutes later with 8 coppers in the back. They all came up to our flat and 4 went in a room with her, 4 in a room with me. One of them pointed out that I was bleeding by my ear. "That's because she was hitting ME" I said. But despite that fact, and the fact that she was completely unharmed and told them I'd not touched her, I was given the choice of finding somewhere else to stay, or sleeping in a cell. It was about 1am. So that was fun. Really pissed me off, and still does.

jj2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People have the right to offend. And to be > offended. > By the way Charlie Hebdo cover of today is a great > exapmle of courage and resiliance, without being > blatantly provocative in my opinion. It's not at all "blatantly provocative", to most of us it's just a silly cartoon of a Muslim man. If IS find it offensive I couldn?t care less, they need to be offended. My worry about the whole thing is that there are lots of young men both in France, here and other countries, who feel pretty disaffected already. This, at a volatile time, could be just enough to tip them over the edge and make them do something silly like going off to join IS, or doing something silly themselves. That is why I don't think it should be published, not because I find it offensive, but because the timing sucks. There are a million other covers they could have used this week which could have shown defiance without using that image.

Sounds fair.

Yeah wasn't suggesting anyone leave, just enjoying the thread.

Loz is the best demi troll on the EDF. He's a good contributor but has openly admitted he enjoys a wind up, and yet people go for it. He's very good at it. Respect. That's not to say that everything he's saying is a wind up by the way.

I think my point is that a lot of the contributors on this forum are bright, well educated, well read people. And they expect the rest of the planet to be all of that too. They aren't.

"And it will not effing be the new cover that is responsible for those deaths, it'll be whatever @#$%& shoots a stranger because some other @#$%& on youtube told them its bad." I know that. Thanks though. Thing is, I suspect a lot of the people that are offended didn't read history at uni. I'm not suggesting that "we" (who?) give in to this sort of thing, I am suggesting that wounds are open and it might be a bit soon to pour salt on them.

Fair play, I thought John saying "no one ever seems to be offended by" was about more general casual antisemitism.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People are only offended if they've decided to > be. It's lines like that which bug me (I'm not offended by the way). You and the likes of SJ, DC, Jeremy are not religious men, you think it's all a load of make believe (it probably is, but that's not what we're discussing here). MILLIONS of people do believe, how can you possibly say that it's "not in the slightest offensive to anyone"? It clearly bloody is. It is not for you to decide what is or is not offensive to people. What are you, Mary Whitehouse?

I wasn't talking about South Park. I stick by my previous post that a lot of people who probably wouldn't use racist slurs against other poeple, tend to just think it's okay with Jews. Try having my wife's last name and see some of the shit she's had on social media.

Because Jews are fair game to many people and a bit of casual antisemitism doesn't bother most people. Israel has acted pretty harshly in recent times too, so everyone thinks Israel = Jew and that's given them another reason.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really Otta - inciting hatred is what an ISIS > video does when it implores followers to murder > non-believers. > > A cartoon of the prophet in a bathrobe doesn't > incite anything. I would have agreed before last week. But now last week has happened, they are about to publish another cartoon, which is set to offend shed loads of people. Someone on Radio 4 this morning (can't remember who, but he wasn't a nutter and sounded reasonable) suggested that instead of Mohammed holding "Je suis Charlie", he could be holding "Je suis Ahmed" (after the muslim police officer that was killed). This may have shown more solidarity with people.

If it's for elderly people, they may already be known to an OT, who MIGHT be able to issue something similar. They certainly would have a few years ago when I was working closely with them in Greenwich, but I suspect cuts will probably mean the best they can do is recommend stuff like this these days.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As long as that doesn't cross the line into > inciting hatred I don't disagree with you really, but surelly inciting hatred is exactly what they have done? That term is very open to interpretation.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't get me wrong I think the priority should be > a secondary school for the site and it should have > enough space. However if there is room for primary > school as well it shouldn't be dismissed That is not at all unreasonable, but there is "room" and there is "room". It just seems a shame that a secondary which could be great may have to be a squeeze in order to fit a primary which would be better off elsewhere (like near the people that need it).

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The gestapo were all > psychopaths, and Nazi ideology was their cause. > There's no difference between that and terrorists > hailing Islam as the excuse for their acts. Disagree. The difference (as others have said) is the whole afterlife thing. Makes for a much more willing nutter.

And part of me wonders whether we (as in the world) might be better off giving them their Caliphate whilst everyone else gets the hell out of there. Basically I feel genuinely scared for the future when I see the children carrying guns and think about the chances of them ever rethinking their perspectives.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Otta I'm not sure - I think that there are > countless causes you can rally to, if you're > looking for a banner to fight under. Religion is a > potent one of course, but there are all sorts of > cults, clubs and causes which can be used to > rationalise violence, if that's your bag. You > could make the same arguments about nation states, > or politics (think Lennon did exactly this). > Whilst I agree that religion did have something to > do with this (as I said above), it's much more > complex than just this. It's a matter of scale though. You're right that there are plenty of loony groups out there that you could get involved with if that was your bag. You're also right that people follow football and this still today includes a level of violence. But nothing anywhere near the scale of Islamic State or Boko Haram. I can't think of any other banner that would a. draw such numbers, and b. draw numbers that will happily embrace death.