Comments on: No easy way to identify terrorists

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:41:17 +0000

If you guys want to offer us the money to hire three full-time monitors, each working an eight-hour shift, to monitor this site and delete offensive comments, please do so. Otherwise, to borrow the favorite phrase around here, fuck off. Or monitor yourselves. Nobody forces you to hang out here.

And with that, I’m closing the thread.

By: tired and emotional

tired and emotional — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:29:32 +0000

Honestly, imagine if ‘hate speech’ protections were ever extended to the far-right!!!! Some posters here would be out of business.

By: tired and emotional

tired and emotional — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:27:33 +0000

And John Reid, notorious right-winger. Presumably.

By: John P.

John P. — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:25:04 +0000

Well, I look forward to David T and co. coming along and denouncing Linguaphone, Morgoth, Nearly Oxfordian, Seymour et al, distancing themelves like. I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time.

How moral art thou…not.

There is no moral value to gleaned from tolerating individuals intent on committing mass murder.

You see, true morality takes a lot of thought and no small amount of hard work, something you appear not to have done.

You no doubt view muslims as the ‘New Jews’.

It’s the fashion!

However ,the Jews of 30s Germany didn’t fly planes into office towers, bomb subways or plot the cruel and inhuman mass murder of innocent civilians.

Nor did Jews establish networks of schools teaching hatred of all things and all peoples non-jewish.

By: Herman

Herman — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:22:57 +0000

That is not all you are doing though is it? You are insinuating that the administrators of this site are at best indifferent to this one-off piece of hate-speech (by one poster in a single post), or agree with it, when your evidence to support this is as flimsy as Nearly Oxfordian’s sanity. Do you understand now?

By: tired and emotional

tired and emotional — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:22:14 +0000

You are correct, sorry, should have spotted that myself. Wonder what the paraphrased paragraph actually said?

Not sure calling for voluntary repatriation counts as hate speech. Didn’t John Reid advocate something like that?

By: Mark T

Mark T — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:22:05 +0000

I insinuate that when the owners of this sight not only tolerate, but chummily get on with, a bunch of extreme-right, repatriation advocating pondlife headbangers like Morgoth, Oxfordian and Seymour Pondlife. it says something about them too.

THEY. ARE. NOT. ONLINE.

JESUS. FUCKING. CHRIST.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:21:29 +0000

“Sikhs, Hindus Christians and JEws have been guilty of recent terrorist violence in India, Uganda, Nigeria and PAlestine, to begin with a few examples. Whether or not they have been convicted is irrelevant”

There are several problems with this statement and with the one about ‘not many terrorist acts by Moslems’.
First of all, every religion has followers that are murderers, rapists, burglars etc; to list their religion in this context is not just irrelevant but misleading, because …
secondly, not in every instance is it religion that motivates them. It can be lots of different reasons.
Thirdly, Christianity does not qua Christianity call for acts of mass murder against Moslems or Jews etc. Islam does (and the absurd ‘argument’ – in reality, realpolitikal PC handwaving – that ‘this is a perversion of Islam’ is denied by quite a few hundreds of millions of Moslems across the Islamic world …).
Fourthly, the statistics across the world over the past, what, 20 years say the opposite to that last claim above.”

Sikhs killed Indians in an airliner specifically because they were Indians. Hindus killed sikhs and muslims specifically because they were sikhs and muslims. Christians in Uganda and Nigeria killed people for not being christians or being the wrong kind of christians. A jew killed the Prime Minister of Israel for being the wrong kind of jew and jews killed Palestinians for being Palestinians. These were specifically motivated by religious beliefs. That’s why I cited them.
Christianity qua christianity practised mass murder against nonchristians and the wrong kind of christians for most of history without even the limited toleration built into islam. there’s no reason to think it won’t again. Nor do the ” statistics across the world over the past, what, 20 years say the opposite to that last claim above” unless you are very choosy with your statistics.

“Fifthly, to say that conviction is irrelevant means that you choose to define terrorism by some personal subjective yardstick. If so, then the discussion is dead because we cannot agree on its terms.”
So, if no-one has been convicted of a crime- as with the mass-murder of muslims in Gujarat- we cannot say there was a crime?

By: king stone

king stone — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:20:57 +0000

Quite good at insinuating themselves Mark T. They insinuate when the SWP let a leaflet go out not mentioning that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust probably says something about their attitude to Jews. They’re probably right. The SWP are wankers.

Shameless, utter wankers, the lot.

By: Geodesic Malarkey

Geodesic Malarkey — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:20:10 +0000

Herman – there have been many posts on HP denouncing other sites for the fact that hate-speech goes unchallenged in their comments boxes. All I am doing is pointing out that there is hate speech on this thread and no administrator has challenged it. Do you understand yet?