Showing of Fitna movie scrapped

[cobblers]

Feb 2, 2009 22:53:35 GMT @vania said:

Feb 2, 2009 15:48:30 GMT @cobblers said:

And your response Vania is that of a thingy. You don't bother to wonder whether the site was really a 'hate' site and you're quite happy for people to be censored.

What on earth are you waffling on about? I said I wondered why New Yorker was listed as a 'guest'? After stumbling across this thread I know.

This is taking your normal trick of inventing what people have said to new heights.

It's your normal trick to trot that out instead of dealing with what is said.

[mars33]

"The author of Fitna is currently in jail for hate speech, I deleted links to his movie."

No, he's not as cobblers pointed out. He has been charged. Surely we all abide to innocent until proven guilty?

[voice]

Well that depends, in the likes of Cobbs and SS's eyes if you are muslim you are guilty of a most heinious crime and if you are not an active terrorist as a muslim you can be nothing short of a tacit supporter, who just hasnt got his hands on an exploding belt, but its only a matter of time.

[sweet soul]

Voice, the whole story is on the very informative bnp website. Why dont u read it. Yes 10,000 was to be mobilised if Wilders had come to the viewing. Why do u have probs with that and any news regarding muslims? Odd cos if its in the news then its open to debate here too !
Limey thanks for that info u found. The truth is out there!
:-)

[limeylily]

Feb 3, 2009 0:44:56 GMT puffin said:

So ... basically Lord Ahmed didn't threaten the Lords with thousands of Muslims. He, and some Muslim representatives, had a meeting with the Chief Whip and the Leader of the house, told them about the protests being organised and the offence the film caused in their community and they decided that it would make sense to cancel the proposed showing.

Trust the BNP to make it sound as if Lord A had gone in, guns blazing, threatening the Lords with bloody riots.
Typical.

It's more likely the Associated Press of Pakistan toned it down so as not to expose His Lordship as a bullying clod unfit to hold any office higher than a Council roadsweeper.

[cobblers]

Feb 3, 2009 5:29:52 GMT voice said:

Well that depends, in the likes of Cobbs and SS's eyes if you are muslim you are guilty of a most heinious crime and if you are not an active terrorist as a muslim you can be nothing short of a tacit supporter, who just hasnt got his hands on an exploding belt, but its only a matter of time.

I think you must switch off or not read my posts Voice. The Islamic project is about projecting Islamic power, which is not exclusively about blowing people up. It is about promoting Islam as a system. Obviously terrorism can act as a lever to help to achieve that but it is only one of the tools at Islamists' disposal. Do try and keep up. Numpty.

[sweet soul]

"I think you must switch off or not read my posts Voice."


haha hes got NOTHIN to switch on!

[tarrant]

So, basically, what we've all been arguing about here is a bit of BNP propaganda.

In the initial post there was no link. SS says that BNP links are not accepted on News. Fine.

But she could have at least said it came from the BNP site then we wouldn't have all wasted out time and lost one of our more established members, New Yorker, in the process.

Hopefully someone can contact New Yorker and explain to him the relaities here. I'm pretty certain that he wouldn't want to be associated with the likes of the BNP any more than almost any other intelegent person on the planet.

[cobblers]

Feb 2, 2009 20:46:53 GMT Libby said:

I really cannot understand why this dreadful film would want to be shown in the House Of Lords! I saw a clip of it on LiveLeak out of curiosity. I didn't watch it all, what i did see was horrific. Promoting human suffering, encouraging children to kill etc. Dreadful. I don't think we want to have anything to do with the movie on this site. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely we are all in agreement that we don't condone sick films of this nature.

If you are talking about Fitna, the film itself didn't promote human suffering/encourage children to kill - it's aim was to illustrate the scriptural insipration for acts of Islamic terror around the world.

I am still witing for an explanation from Foxy why she banned/censored New Yorker and why she says the film is a hate film.

[sweet soul]

NY leaving has got nothin to do with the lead post u nut Tarrant

[tarrant]

No. NY leaving was because he took umbridge at the deletion of offensive links.

But the tone of this discussion would have been very different if you have been honest enough at the very begining to say that this report is a pile of BNP spin and its relevance to reality is somewhat lacking.

In that case, the course of the discussion would have been very different and the agressive stance by some members might not have been evident.

For the record, I tend to agree with NY in that I am also completely opposed to censorship.

However, on any discussion site we all must be subject to the rules. Here, the admins of ther site have ruled such and such.

Equally if we were in one of those sites where only certain opinions may be expressed the same would apply.

[sweet soul]

"But the tone of this discussion would have been very different if you have been honest enough at the very begining to say that this report is a pile of BNP spin and its relevance to reality is somewhat lacking. - tarrant


news is news tarrant, you only had to google ahmed and fitna to get more info.

[sweet soul]

only links to bnp sites are banned here OK???
info and news is fine as long as the link isnt posted!!
stop whinging,!

[limeylily]

Feb 3, 2009 10:50:00 GMT @tarrant said:

So, basically, what we've all been arguing about here is a bit of BNP propaganda.

In the initial post there was no link. SS says that BNP links are not accepted on News. Fine.

But she could have at least said it came from the BNP site then we wouldn't have all wasted out time and lost one of our more established members, New Yorker, in the process.

Hopefully someone can contact New Yorker and explain to him the relaities here. I'm pretty certain that he wouldn't want to be associated with the likes of the BNP any more than almost any other intelegent person on the planet.

You'll be happy to know, I'm sure, that somebody did contact New Yorker on another site where he was free to see the link from the Brussels Journal, which incidentally, although describing itself as "Conservative", is not allied to the BNP. If you're that concerned, you could google the Brussels Journal yourself and clink on the link "Muslims in the Lords". NYer is fully aware of the realities here - as he has made perfectly clear.

[Amazed]

"the very informative bnp website"

[limeylily]

Feb 3, 2009 11:33:07 GMT Amazed said:

"the very informative bnp website"

Or the even more informative Brussels Journal.

[bertrus2]

News of an upcoming appointment with a judge for Lord Ahmed.

Lord Ahmed, the Labour peer, is due to be sentenced this month for dangerous driving after admitting to sending text messages while driving on a motorway at more than 60mph, shortly before a colliding with and killing a driver who was stranded in the outside lane.
Times Online 3 Feb , 2009

[cobblers]

Feb 3, 2009 11:01:53 GMT @tarrant said:

No. NY leaving was because he took umbridge at the deletion of offensive links.

But the tone of this discussion would have been very different if you have been honest enough at the very begining to say that this report is a pile of BNP spin and its relevance to reality is somewhat lacking.

In that case, the course of the discussion would have been very different and the agressive stance by some members might not have been evident.

For the record, I tend to agree with NY in that I am also completely opposed to censorship.

However, on any discussion site we all must be subject to the rules. Here, the admins of ther site have ruled such and such.

Equally if we were in one of those sites where only certain opinions may be expressed the same would apply.

We should have minimal rules and they should be applied fairly. Moderators should themselves operate under the rules. Where the application is in doubt, moderators should be able to give an account of why they took a particular course of action.

If New Yorker's link to Fitna was removed, I think the moderator overstepped the mark.

[bertrus2]

The point to get across is the scrapping of the showing cos of threats by ahmed.

What threats?

[sweet soul]

Bert, its in the first post. Ahmed threatend to mobilise 10.000 muslims to protest in a protest.
So the peer backed down and scrapped the viewing of fitna to the house of lords.