Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News4 mins ago
Are the Left stunned by The Guardian’s perceived treachery?
23 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/367osv4
The Guardian newspaper proudly trumpeted the fact that through WikiLeaks it had obtained access to hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables between the U.S. and other governments, and then set about publishing as many of them as it could.
But now On Saturday, The Guardian made a dramatic 'U Turn' by published explosive leaked revelations from the Swedish prosecution case against Assange.and this has enraged the 'feminists' who believe that all men are potential rapists.
All this has split the 'Left' right down the centre do they support Assange for releasing anti American secrets or do they support their strong 'feminists' lobby?
The Guardian newspaper proudly trumpeted the fact that through WikiLeaks it had obtained access to hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic cables between the U.S. and other governments, and then set about publishing as many of them as it could.
But now On Saturday, The Guardian made a dramatic 'U Turn' by published explosive leaked revelations from the Swedish prosecution case against Assange.and this has enraged the 'feminists' who believe that all men are potential rapists.
All this has split the 'Left' right down the centre do they support Assange for releasing anti American secrets or do they support their strong 'feminists' lobby?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Made up claptrap. It is possible to support the website but not the man fronting it. If Assange is a rapist, then he should prosecuted.If he is convicted, then that does not mean Wikileaks is invalid. Rather like supporting thrpe Conservative Party but thinking Cameron is a plonker. The leader and the organisation are seperate.
i know not whether Assange is innocent or guilty, but I think some of wikipedia's leaks are in the public interest. The Iraq leaks were very revealling wheras the latest ones are largely gossip and not very valid.
The Bank of America ones coming soon sound interesting, hope we get to see them.
The case against Assange and the timing feel like dirty tricks and an attempt to discredit him and the organisation.
i know not whether Assange is innocent or guilty, but I think some of wikipedia's leaks are in the public interest. The Iraq leaks were very revealling wheras the latest ones are largely gossip and not very valid.
The Bank of America ones coming soon sound interesting, hope we get to see them.
The case against Assange and the timing feel like dirty tricks and an attempt to discredit him and the organisation.
-- answer removed --
LoL.No split. No wars between the left. No one surely can take seriously anything that Mad Mel ever says. The woman is a whackaloon of the finest kind.
As other commentators here have said, it is entirely possible to support the concept of Wikileaks without necessarily slavishly supporting Assange.This nuanced approach to world events is lost on those of the righteous right...............
As other commentators here have said, it is entirely possible to support the concept of Wikileaks without necessarily slavishly supporting Assange.This nuanced approach to world events is lost on those of the righteous right...............
The "Left" is often split down the middle as a result of different loyalties to its pet ideologies, AOG.
The most notable (though more notable for being kept hidden away than for its discussion) is their loyalty to Muslims and to Gay and Women’s Rights movements. It must be difficult for them to square their support of Islam with that religion’s attitude towards and treatment of gays and women.
I find it quite amusing!
The most notable (though more notable for being kept hidden away than for its discussion) is their loyalty to Muslims and to Gay and Women’s Rights movements. It must be difficult for them to square their support of Islam with that religion’s attitude towards and treatment of gays and women.
I find it quite amusing!
Not as amusing as the right being lead by Cameron.
Husky hugging climate change proponent
International aid superstar
And hasn't it gone quiet about the Human rights act, the free vote on hunting and all those other right wing policies!
He's even made Ken Clarke Justice secretary!
He just needs to do a bit of homework on economic policy and Clegg'll be out of a job
Husky hugging climate change proponent
International aid superstar
And hasn't it gone quiet about the Human rights act, the free vote on hunting and all those other right wing policies!
He's even made Ken Clarke Justice secretary!
He just needs to do a bit of homework on economic policy and Clegg'll be out of a job
New Judge
The problem you face is common to this who see things in black and white. The problem that those who lean to the left will always have is that we see things in shades of grey ALL THE TIME. This makes it difficult to be as 'prescriptive' as those who lean to the right "all gays are...", "all Muslims are...", "all women are..."
Because we see in shades of we understand that whilst Islam (like Christianity) is wholly hostile to gays, we ALSO understand that Muslims as individuals don't necessarily follow the more extreme doctrines of their religion...in the same way that not all Christians would refuse to let their B&B rooms to gay couples or perform civil ceremonies.
Seeing life in greys is actually more rewarding than seeing it in black and white.
The problem you face is common to this who see things in black and white. The problem that those who lean to the left will always have is that we see things in shades of grey ALL THE TIME. This makes it difficult to be as 'prescriptive' as those who lean to the right "all gays are...", "all Muslims are...", "all women are..."
Because we see in shades of we understand that whilst Islam (like Christianity) is wholly hostile to gays, we ALSO understand that Muslims as individuals don't necessarily follow the more extreme doctrines of their religion...in the same way that not all Christians would refuse to let their B&B rooms to gay couples or perform civil ceremonies.
Seeing life in greys is actually more rewarding than seeing it in black and white.
-- answer removed --
I don't have a problem at all, SP!
Yes, steve, you are quite right. And I don't know just how much more flexible you can get than the Left's views on Islam and homosexuality (i.e. being gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, no criticism of it can be uttered, laws must be changed to accommodate it, but those of the Muslim faith can denounce it wholeheartedly - even if they don't all stone gays to death).
Yes, steve, you are quite right. And I don't know just how much more flexible you can get than the Left's views on Islam and homosexuality (i.e. being gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, no criticism of it can be uttered, laws must be changed to accommodate it, but those of the Muslim faith can denounce it wholeheartedly - even if they don't all stone gays to death).
Totally agree with that sentiment. Why on earth should someone have the ordained right to criticise a sexuality? It would be like criticising men en masse, or women en masse.
No problem with criticising say actions, opinions, points of view, but how on earth can someone criticise a sexuality??? Why WOULD someone do that?
No problem with criticising say actions, opinions, points of view, but how on earth can someone criticise a sexuality??? Why WOULD someone do that?
New Judge
By the way - have you noticed that whenever gay rights are mentioned in conjunction with religion, it's always the Muslims who get criticised...but have you ever noticed...in his country, whenever there's a story about someone who objects to homosexuality on the basis of their religion...it's always a Christian. Whether they be a B&B owner (there's been a couple of stories in the past two years) or a registrar who won't perform civil ceremonies.
Not saying that Christians are any more homophobic than Muslims - but they definitely seem more intolerant.
Is that something you've noticed?
By the way - have you noticed that whenever gay rights are mentioned in conjunction with religion, it's always the Muslims who get criticised...but have you ever noticed...in his country, whenever there's a story about someone who objects to homosexuality on the basis of their religion...it's always a Christian. Whether they be a B&B owner (there's been a couple of stories in the past two years) or a registrar who won't perform civil ceremonies.
Not saying that Christians are any more homophobic than Muslims - but they definitely seem more intolerant.
Is that something you've noticed?
Only rarely do you hear of any intolerance among followers of either religion. However, Muslim homosexuals who flee their homelands and claim asylum here often cite the fact that they will be persecuted or even executed by the State should they be forced to return home. I don't hear of anybody fearing State execution here, so it could be argued that Muslim States are slightly less tolerant of homosexuality than the UK.
However, that is not really the issue here. The biggest difference, and the crux of my argument, is this: both the Christian faith and Islam frown upon homosexuality to varying degrees and they should both be respected for their beliefs however disagreeable they may seem to some people. However, the chattering classes positively castigate any Christians who manifest this (and indeed many other) aspects their faith (and the treatment of the B&B owners mentioned are an example of that). But, as I said in my earlier post, no mention of Islam’s view on homosexuality is ever uttered. It is as if it did not exist. And that is what I find hypocritical.
However, that is not really the issue here. The biggest difference, and the crux of my argument, is this: both the Christian faith and Islam frown upon homosexuality to varying degrees and they should both be respected for their beliefs however disagreeable they may seem to some people. However, the chattering classes positively castigate any Christians who manifest this (and indeed many other) aspects their faith (and the treatment of the B&B owners mentioned are an example of that). But, as I said in my earlier post, no mention of Islam’s view on homosexuality is ever uttered. It is as if it did not exist. And that is what I find hypocritical.
-- answer removed --
@ New Judge. We are a country that offers freedom of worship to adherents of any religion. That does not mean that religions should get a free ride, that their less savoury, hate- or fear- driven beliefs should go unchallenged.
There should be no automatic "respect" for bigotry, sectarianism or homophobia spouted by any religion, nor should religious freedom trump secular law.
There should be no automatic "respect" for bigotry, sectarianism or homophobia spouted by any religion, nor should religious freedom trump secular law.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog30 mins ago
Body & Soul32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
ChatterBank38 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.