... but the Islamic extremists are inciting violence and promoting death and killing, yet you say they should be allowed to voice their, ahem, "opinion"Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
Printable View
... but the Islamic extremists are inciting violence and promoting death and killing, yet you say they should be allowed to voice their, ahem, "opinion"Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
i've said that as long as they don't do that i don't care. read what i've written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
Somebody calling Raoul Moat a legend does not promote violence either, you cannot have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
I have read it. You say that the Islamic extremists (who are violent and incite hatred and violence) are entitled to their opinions as it's freedom of speech, however you're now saying if they are not doing this you don't care. But they are doing it, so you should care.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
They incite violence, hatred, death, racism and many other things - we should not tolerate this. Just like we wouldn't if the KKK turned up.
I differ from you in the sense that I agree they should be allowed to air their views, but I agree with the line your taking and that was my point - it cannot be both ways for differing groups. As usual its the mindset creeping in which is to pander to the minority and restrict the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
The total opposite of democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
they aren't ALL the same are they. i only care about taking action against those who DO call for violence or actively make people who are killers martyrs towards their causes. people saying 'Islam will take over europe' or 'sharia law for the uk' or even 'soldiers are not heroes' - that's OK. there's no issue there. i don't care about those views. however a preacher saying 'rise up and kill the queen,' 'we shall rip the heads of those who do not convert' and 'if british blood is spilt in our cause, so be it,' - that's something completely different, it's calling for violence and it is a direct threat.Quote:
as long as they don't call for violence or be violent i don't care about their view
So what is wrong with calling a killer a legend?Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
making a martyr out of a murderer. it's not acceptable (in my view) that we allow murderers to get a positive status. mentally unstable people may feel that they will gain some sort of everlasting status in people's minds after their personal suicidal mission against a group or some people. i guess an RIP group could be alright as long as it isn't promoting his cause and satirical groups are fine. it's the same in my opinion as groups which make a martyr out of suicide bombers.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
no. the guy who got shot showed sympathy for him, and not only that, its freedom of speech. its not as extreme as a hate group, and so shouldnt be deleted
Paying tribute to somebody or making a good point of somebody bad is not giving them martyr status. A lot of people would argue that the actions of Tony Blair consitute murder and that he himself led to the deaths of many innocent Iraqis. The same goes for Karl Marx whose idealogy has killed and spawned more nutcases than the world has ever seen before (Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Vladimir Lenin and so on). Where and how do you draw the line?Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
The answer is, you cannot.
In your world and along your lines, an extremist here can call for the end of the western world and stir up racial and religious hatred whilst calling for free speech to be banned, yet people cannot join a Facebook group calling Raoul Mote a legend.
How does that work out?