|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 14:22:35 GMT
So MEMRI is a hate site? They are verbatim broadcasts (with accompanying translations) from the arab media.
So where does the hate emanate from?
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 2, 2009 14:23:41 GMT
I didn't think much of Fitna either, but then I'm already aware of the contents of the Koran. And it's difficult to do justice to Islam in the space of 15 minutes. But if people see for themselves the verses Koranic who didn't know about them before, that's a good thing. And if nothing else it gets people talking about it. For anyone who hasn't seen the film to give opinions on it is ridiculous, especially when it's available to view on the internet. |
|
sweet soul
New Member
Keep The Faith !
Posts: 5,106 
|
Post by sweet soul on Feb 2, 2009 14:24:39 GMT
Dont post it tarrant !
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 2, 2009 14:24:50 GMT
So MEMRI is a hate site? They are verbatim broadcasts (with accompanying translations) from the arab media. So where does the hate emannate from? I think you answered your own question Cobbs. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 14:26:06 GMT
So MEMRI is a hate site? They are verbatim broadcasts (with accompanying translations) from the arab media. So where does the hate emannate from? I think you answered your own question Cobbs. ;D Indeed, a startling admission from Bertrus. |
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 2, 2009 14:29:55 GMT
Have a look at this: That film was on the same site I posted the Fitna movie from and was the Islamic riposte to Fitna. Unless you're a Muslim, Tarrant, I can't think of any reason why you'd post a hate film about Christianity or Judaism. |
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 2, 2009 14:33:19 GMT
I think you answered your own question Cobbs. ;D Indeed, a startling admission from Bertrus. Not on this planet Cobbs. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 14:36:47 GMT
Comnparing the two videos, there is a glaring difference. The passages quoted from the Bible are the Old Testament and have been abrogated by the message of Christ in the New Testament - love, peace and forgiveness.
Whereas the sword (from the later Medinan period) verses in the Koran have abrogated the earlier peaceful (from the Meccan period).
An important basic difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorker on Feb 2, 2009 14:41:19 GMT
From a TRUTH site, not a "hate" site.
This film was on TV over here in the states. Step on my freedom of speech again, and I am out of here.
To illustrate, here's the link to the mainstream media coverage of the documentary.
Are we at the point where a presentation of the facts are being censored?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 2, 2009 14:50:10 GMT
That film was on the same site I posted the Fitna movie from and was the Islamic riposte to Fitna. Unless you're a Muslim, Tarrant, I can't think of any reason why you'd post a hate film about Christianity or Judaism. Don't shoot the messenger. I posted it because there is a message at the very end from the producer that seems to be relevant here. |
|
|
|
Post by newyorker on Feb 2, 2009 15:13:37 GMT
Foxy, that was a link to a DOCUMENTARY film's website, a film that was shown on TV here in the states.
My last post was a link to that film's media coverage on CNN, Fox, etc. Which you have now also deleted.
If the presentation of FACTS is now censored because some don't like the FACTS you just lost a poster that's a massive contributor to this board.
I'm gone.
Good luck, keep this up, and this is going to be a very boring place.
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 2, 2009 15:20:35 GMT
I wondered why New Yorker was listed as a guest.
Although much as it pains me to say it, SS as a point. I cannot for the life of me fathom why it was shown in the house of lords. But if a decision was made not to show it, it should not have been based on Lord Ahmed's threats.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 15:27:59 GMT
What has happened to New Yorker? What did he put up and what was the objection to it?
If we truly are going to censor the discussion of controversial subjects, I won'tbother either.
I can pass the time of day with real people, this site is - or should be - for dicussion od current affairs. If it becomes a cosy little club for geeks who'll never meet and who come on here to exchange banalities, everyone remaining will be a total saddo.
Enjoy and assert your freedom to discuss controversial subjects, it's the best thing about the internet.
|
|
Amazed
New Member
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Amazed on Feb 2, 2009 15:36:45 GMT
He posted and reposted a link to a site Foxy deemed as a hate site.
When the link was repeatedly deleted, he left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foxy1 on Feb 2, 2009 15:37:04 GMT
Foxy, that was a link to a DOCUMENTARY film's website, a film that was shown on TV here in the states. My last post was a link to that film's media coverage on CNN, Fox, etc. Which you have now also deleted. If the presentation of FACTS is now censored because some don't like the FACTS you just lost a poster that's a massive contributor to this board. I'm gone. Good luck, keep this up, and this is going to be a very boring place. Maybe you mistyped - your last link was not a link to a newspaper or reputable news source, it was to some film or other about islamic hatred ... it may have been fine, but people are risking having this site deleted by posting links to hate sites, and reposting even after they have been deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 15:41:40 GMT
What is the hate site concerned?
I am totally behind the idea that if this site is reduced to platitudes, devoid of all controversial points of view (from both sides) it becomes pointless and meaningless and a place for saddos with no real friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 2, 2009 15:44:38 GMT
New Yorker threw a tantrum and left.
I bet he'll be back though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foxy1 on Feb 2, 2009 15:46:19 GMT
controversial points of view are fine - links to films preaching hatred are a different matter and breach proboards' terms of service.
|
|
sweet soul
New Member
Keep The Faith !
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by sweet soul on Feb 2, 2009 15:46:37 GMT
Eeek !
Now look wot my threads done :-(
I only wanted to discuss lord ahmeds threats and now my fave ppl have gone.
Thats so awfull!
Sucks : (
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 2, 2009 15:47:23 GMT
The point to get across is the scrapping of the showing cos of threats by ahmed. Not the movie itself. The threats levelled at the Lords by Lord Ahmed are completely unacceptable and he should be censured by the Leader of the Lords. The Upper House desperately needs restructuring, not least to remove peers who abuse their position. as Lord Ahmed has on this occasion, and those who solicit bribes in return for amending legislation. |
|
