Just Watching The The Jackie Stewart Doc...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Another Belter From The R0P
259 Answers
http://
Wonder what this poor little sod did to offend.
Wonder what this poor little sod did to offend.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
PiedPiper - //yawn yawn yawn. does it really matter. //
That depends.
If you think that making bigoted assumptions on no evidence, that furthers ignorance and hostility towards a religious faith, and the peaceful adherents to it, is important, then yes, it matters.
If such things do not concern you, then no, it does not matter.
If it doesn't matter, then there is no need to read the thread - or contribute to it.
That depends.
If you think that making bigoted assumptions on no evidence, that furthers ignorance and hostility towards a religious faith, and the peaceful adherents to it, is important, then yes, it matters.
If such things do not concern you, then no, it does not matter.
If it doesn't matter, then there is no need to read the thread - or contribute to it.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes, //It is unlike you to contradict yourself at all - much less in the same sentence!//
I haven’t contradicted myself. I said //no one has claimed to know her reasons for doing what she did - but there can be no doubt whatsoever that her faith influenced her actions on that day//. That doesn’t mean her faith induced her to decapitate the child – we don’t know yet why she did that – but her faith certainly influenced her subsequent actions. Would you agree?
ichkeria, that’s for you too.
I haven’t contradicted myself. I said //no one has claimed to know her reasons for doing what she did - but there can be no doubt whatsoever that her faith influenced her actions on that day//. That doesn’t mean her faith induced her to decapitate the child – we don’t know yet why she did that – but her faith certainly influenced her subsequent actions. Would you agree?
ichkeria, that’s for you too.
Naomi - // but her faith certainly influenced her subsequent actions. Would you agree? //
Since you have changed the meaning of your statement by inserting the word 'subsequent' into it - yes I can agree with that statement.
But that is not what you said initially is it?
You said - // ... but there can be no doubt whatsoever that her faith influenced her actions on that day ...//
And there is every doubt! Who knows if it was her faith that made her murder a decapitate a child? She suggests it was not, and she is more likely to know than you or I.
But when you put the word 'subsequent' into the sentence, that refers to her actions when she came into public view, and she was shouting Muslim salutations - so obviously her faith was in influence there.
But the instances are separated, and you know that, and I have exposed your movement of the goal posts.
Once again, I admire your tenacity, since you remain the only poster willing to further the spurious argument from the OP - I have been waiting over five hours for someone else to join in, but they seem reluctant.
Maybe they know a lost cause when they see one?
Since you have changed the meaning of your statement by inserting the word 'subsequent' into it - yes I can agree with that statement.
But that is not what you said initially is it?
You said - // ... but there can be no doubt whatsoever that her faith influenced her actions on that day ...//
And there is every doubt! Who knows if it was her faith that made her murder a decapitate a child? She suggests it was not, and she is more likely to know than you or I.
But when you put the word 'subsequent' into the sentence, that refers to her actions when she came into public view, and she was shouting Muslim salutations - so obviously her faith was in influence there.
But the instances are separated, and you know that, and I have exposed your movement of the goal posts.
Once again, I admire your tenacity, since you remain the only poster willing to further the spurious argument from the OP - I have been waiting over five hours for someone else to join in, but they seem reluctant.
Maybe they know a lost cause when they see one?
Naomi - //andy-hughes, I referred to her 'subsequent' behaviour at 08:58 this morning. Perhaps you missed it. Pleased you agree anyway. //
You may have done, but quoting your own post and then altering it still leaves you well busted!
Come on, I don't best you often - at least give me the pleasure being right just this once!
You may have done, but quoting your own post and then altering it still leaves you well busted!
Come on, I don't best you often - at least give me the pleasure being right just this once!
Naomi - 13:38 - //no one has claimed to know her reasons for doing what she did - but there can be no doubt whatsoever that her faith influenced her actions on that day//
13:38-and-a-bit - // ... we don’t know yet why she did that – but her faith certainly influenced her subsequent actions. //
I can see the word 'subsequent' added in there, which alters the entire meaning of the post.
I am not wrong - no need to be sorry, but in the interests of thread integrity, I am dipping out of this personal argument.
If you are unwilling or unable to admit that the insertion of a word completely changes the meaning of your position, then that is a matter for your conscience - but the posts are there to be read by anyone.
13:38-and-a-bit - // ... we don’t know yet why she did that – but her faith certainly influenced her subsequent actions. //
I can see the word 'subsequent' added in there, which alters the entire meaning of the post.
I am not wrong - no need to be sorry, but in the interests of thread integrity, I am dipping out of this personal argument.
If you are unwilling or unable to admit that the insertion of a word completely changes the meaning of your position, then that is a matter for your conscience - but the posts are there to be read by anyone.
andy-hughes, //If you are unwilling or unable to admit that the insertion of a word completely changes the meaning of your position, then that is a matter for your conscience//
What utter tripe! I used the word ‘subsequent’ early this morning and repeated it later, but you’re right in one respect at least – the posts are there to be read by anyone. Incidentally, don’t ever accuse me again of deception. I don’t lie.
What utter tripe! I used the word ‘subsequent’ early this morning and repeated it later, but you’re right in one respect at least – the posts are there to be read by anyone. Incidentally, don’t ever accuse me again of deception. I don’t lie.
Naomi - you will be called as you are found - no exceptions made just for you because you think you are right.
You know as well as I do that deception and lying are two different things.
I have already said I am not carrying on this personal spat - it is counter-productive to the thread - so this is my last exchange with you about your duplicity.
You know as well as I do that deception and lying are two different things.
I have already said I am not carrying on this personal spat - it is counter-productive to the thread - so this is my last exchange with you about your duplicity.
TT and those who sided with your viewpoint yesterday - I asked if, in the light of the news reports that this lady has offered two explanations for her behaviour, and neither of them involve her faith - do you have anything to add - or indeed subtract - from your posts yesterday.
The ensuing silence infers much I think ...
The ensuing silence infers much I think ...
This is very similar to the Lee Rigby case, except it has been perpetrated against a tiny child who is indisputably an innocent!
> in the light of the news reports that this lady has offered two explanations for her behaviour, and neither of them involve her faith
Neither of those "explanations" explain why she beheaded an innocent child.
Both the report in the OP, and the report linked to by andy-hughes, states:
> Amateur video posted online shows a black-clad woman, apparently the suspect, outside a metro station shouting the Islamic phrase "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great). "I am a terrorist," she cries. "I am your death."
The fact that beheading was used, the fact that it was against an innocent little child, the fact that "Allahu Akbar" was shouted afterwards, the fact that terrorism was claimed .... these facts do tend to suggest Muslim terrorism tactics. It's either that or a complete nutter who happens to be a) Muslim and who happens to express their nuttiness through b) terrorism tactics, which isn't really much different, is it?
It really is abhorrent that much of the thread should be devoted to picking over the difference between these two very similar positions, when at the heart of it all an innocent child has been murdered.
> in the light of the news reports that this lady has offered two explanations for her behaviour, and neither of them involve her faith
Neither of those "explanations" explain why she beheaded an innocent child.
Both the report in the OP, and the report linked to by andy-hughes, states:
> Amateur video posted online shows a black-clad woman, apparently the suspect, outside a metro station shouting the Islamic phrase "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great). "I am a terrorist," she cries. "I am your death."
The fact that beheading was used, the fact that it was against an innocent little child, the fact that "Allahu Akbar" was shouted afterwards, the fact that terrorism was claimed .... these facts do tend to suggest Muslim terrorism tactics. It's either that or a complete nutter who happens to be a) Muslim and who happens to express their nuttiness through b) terrorism tactics, which isn't really much different, is it?
It really is abhorrent that much of the thread should be devoted to picking over the difference between these two very similar positions, when at the heart of it all an innocent child has been murdered.
just got back to this:
"Can anyone who went banging on about this being 'typical Muslim behaviour' yesterday help me out on this - since you were so convinced that it was her faith that made her do this? " - so, Andy, do you think that declaring "god is great" is unconnected to the religion and actons of this woman?
"Can anyone who went banging on about this being 'typical Muslim behaviour' yesterday help me out on this - since you were so convinced that it was her faith that made her do this? " - so, Andy, do you think that declaring "god is great" is unconnected to the religion and actons of this woman?
"It's either that or a complete nutter who happens to be a) Muslim and who happens to express their nuttiness through b) terrorism tactics, which isn't really much different, is it? "
It might matter to the so-called "law" enforcement authorities in that city and elsewhere. There is a difference between someone flipping and murdering someone perhaps for personal reasons, even if they try to glorify their actions in the name of some wider cause, and someone who has genuinely been motivated by political grievance. Because if the latter then maybe she is not acting alone.
It might matter to the so-called "law" enforcement authorities in that city and elsewhere. There is a difference between someone flipping and murdering someone perhaps for personal reasons, even if they try to glorify their actions in the name of some wider cause, and someone who has genuinely been motivated by political grievance. Because if the latter then maybe she is not acting alone.
TTT - //just got back to this:
"Can anyone who went banging on about this being 'typical Muslim behaviour' yesterday help me out on this - since you were so convinced that it was her faith that made her do this? " - so, Andy, do you think that declaring "god is great" is unconnected to the religion and actons of this woman? //
I am delighted to repeat my position since, unlike some contributors, it remains unchanged.
In the interest of clarity, I will make my view as simple as possible.
To answer your question - // ... so, Andy, do you think that declaring "god is great" is unconnected to the religion and actons of this woman? //
I think it may be connected, but there is absolutely no evidence to confirm that it is connected.
The woman comes out dressed in Muslim clothing, and shouting Muslim salutations - does that suggest that she is a Muslim? Yes it does.
Is the shouting of Muslim salutations a cast-iron guarantee that she has murdered this child in the name of Jihad? No it is categorically not a guarantee of anything of the sort, and that has been my point since I joined the thread.
If it sounds like a horse, it could still be a zebra, and my argument has always been that assuming an action based on perceived behaviours of the same faith base is seriously dodgy without some sort of evidence, and at the time we were debating yesterday, there was none at all available.
Since then, the woman has offered two individual explanations, neither of which are remotely connected to her faith - which simply goes to strengthen my argument.
In conclusion - I think shouting 'God is great' can definitely be attributed to her religion but - and this is the crux of the issue - it's the only thing that can be attributed to her religion based on evidence available at the time of writing.
Anything else - from your post downwards, on that point, is speculation - and should be acknowledged as such.
"Can anyone who went banging on about this being 'typical Muslim behaviour' yesterday help me out on this - since you were so convinced that it was her faith that made her do this? " - so, Andy, do you think that declaring "god is great" is unconnected to the religion and actons of this woman? //
I am delighted to repeat my position since, unlike some contributors, it remains unchanged.
In the interest of clarity, I will make my view as simple as possible.
To answer your question - // ... so, Andy, do you think that declaring "god is great" is unconnected to the religion and actons of this woman? //
I think it may be connected, but there is absolutely no evidence to confirm that it is connected.
The woman comes out dressed in Muslim clothing, and shouting Muslim salutations - does that suggest that she is a Muslim? Yes it does.
Is the shouting of Muslim salutations a cast-iron guarantee that she has murdered this child in the name of Jihad? No it is categorically not a guarantee of anything of the sort, and that has been my point since I joined the thread.
If it sounds like a horse, it could still be a zebra, and my argument has always been that assuming an action based on perceived behaviours of the same faith base is seriously dodgy without some sort of evidence, and at the time we were debating yesterday, there was none at all available.
Since then, the woman has offered two individual explanations, neither of which are remotely connected to her faith - which simply goes to strengthen my argument.
In conclusion - I think shouting 'God is great' can definitely be attributed to her religion but - and this is the crux of the issue - it's the only thing that can be attributed to her religion based on evidence available at the time of writing.
Anything else - from your post downwards, on that point, is speculation - and should be acknowledged as such.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
What's Eton Musk Really Up To ?.
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.