Was the Woolwich killing terrorism?

For stuff that can only sensibly reside here. You have been warned. HERE LIVETH TROLLS!

Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

Post Reply
User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:41 pm

Stan wrote:for someone so open minded as you profess to be, & considering it would have taken you the same amount of time to google the term I told you to as it did for you to reply to me, forgive me for disbelieving your claims to be open minded :)
No, that isn't the way it works I am afraid.

If I make a claim, and you ask to see the source, the onus is on me to provide you with the source, not for you to go and search it.

if I say Harry has just been sacked, and you say how do I know, the onus is on me to tell you where I found it out, not say "go and google it".

So, yes, pathetic attempt by you to try and smear :)

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:45 pm

That's not the article I was referring to. They cross posted this article:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/06/03/no ... xpurgated/

what is it with you & insulting people? It's almost as if you're not interested in actually debating the topic you instigated.

As for the smear comment, my first post stated I have no time for the term "terrorism", but for different reasons to you.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:50 pm

BTW, you DO realise that cifWatch is a Zionist site that no one even takes seriously, don't you? Why? because they're blatantly full of so much rubbish.

I mean, let's look at this article on GG by cifWatch.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/04/17/benghazi ... on-attack/

GG, and others are being called a hypocrite. And the reason they're being called a hypocrite is that they said the media was wrong to assume the Boston bombers were Muslims before there was any evidence that they were, yet they were happy to call the guy who made a movie about Muhammad that sparked riots to an Israeli Jew without any evidence.

However, there is no double standard here at all. the guy who made the movie himself said he is an Israeli Jew! Yes, he was lying, but you can't accuse GG of calling him an Israel Jew incorrectly when the guy is the one lying.

Brilliant, just exposes cifWatch and their crazy smears of comparing apples to oranges.

Just to clarify again, GG and others did not jump to conclusions without evidence and call this filmmaker an Israeli Jew. They called him an Israeli Jew because that is what the guy said he is.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:00 pm

Well I didn't want to go down the road of smearing the source. I could easily & justifiably say that "nobody" takes GG seriously because he is such a well known extreme Left commentator. Plenty of people take CIF Watch seriously, including CIF & the Guardian themselves.

Dont confuse your opinion with everybody else's. It just makes you sound arrogant beyond belief.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:04 pm

Stan wrote:That's not the article I was referring to. They cross posted this article:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/06/03/no ... xpurgated/

what is it with you & insulting people? It's almost as if you're not interested in actually debating the topic you instigated.

As for the smear comment, my first post stated I have no time for the term "terrorism", but for different reasons to you.

The article you quote states:

How little Greenwald pays attention, even to himself. The Jonathan Institute definition referred to “the deliberate systematic murder, maiming and menacing of innocents.” However much some may think the U.S. and others screwed the pooch in Iraq or misapplied themselves at some point or other in Afghanistan, do they truly wish to argue that just as Al Qeada and its varied Islamist affiliates and sympathizers, and just as the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban today, these Western nations engaged or are engaging in “deliberate,” in “systematic” attack on innocents? (Does Glenn Greenwald wish to claim that the images of dead children he exploits for the purpose of ideological contest in a daily newspaper were the victims of “deliberate, systematic murder”?) Well actually, some people do. We know that. Some people do argue that.

Actually, we have killed civilians deliberately. There have been instances when an al-Qaeda terrorist has been sitting with his family, and we have sent in a drone to kill him, killing his family too. We knew innocents would be killed, but we still did it, saying it was "collateral damage", and that if we didn't kill that guy and his innocent family, he would have killed us in the future.
There have been instances when we have carried out a drone attack, and when people have gathered to bury them, we have carried out another attack, knowing full well that many of the people now there could be innocent - but we assume them all to be guilty with no evidence at all. How do we justify it? We say there were some terrorists there, yes, there might have been innocents, but this is war, sadly innocents get killed.

So we repeatedly bend the rules - we don't like killing civilians, but life is not utopia, and so sometimes we have to kill civilians to achieve our aims.

And that is exactly what terrorists do - they say we have to kill civilians to achieve our aims.

But when terrorists do it, it is wrong, but when we do it, it's legitimate, because we have no other choice.

So, yes, GG is right, and this article is disingeneous. It pretends we never kill civilians deliberately, but we do.

Finally, it is the weaker side that has to resort to killing civilians in larger numbers. If al-Qaeda were a superpower, and we were weak, and if al-Qaeda could kill our troops easily, and we couldn't really harm their troops because they were so much stronger than us, then al-Qaeda probably wouldn't be attacking our civilians, because they wouldn't need to, and we would probably be attacking their civilians, as that would be the only way we could hurt them and try to achieve our goals.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:06 pm

Marshy wrote:BTW, you DO realise that cifWatch is a Zionist site that no one even takes seriously, don't you? Why? because they're blatantly full of so much rubbish.

I mean, let's look at this article on GG by cifWatch.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/04/17/benghazi ... on-attack/

GG, and others are being called a hypocrite. And the reason they're being called a hypocrite is that they said the media was wrong to assume the Boston bombers were Muslims before there was any evidence that they were, yet they were happy to call the guy who made a movie about Muhammad that sparked riots to an Israeli Jew without any evidence.

However, there is no double standard here at all. the guy who made the movie himself said he is an Israeli Jew! Yes, he was lying, but you can't accuse GG of calling him an Israel Jew incorrectly when the guy is the one lying.

Brilliant, just exposes cifWatch and their crazy smears of comparing apples to oranges.

Just to clarify again, GG and others did not jump to conclusions without evidence and call this filmmaker an Israeli Jew. They called him an Israeli Jew because that is what the guy said he is.
well if you want to talk about this, of course GG was wrong. And a hypocrite.

Responsible journalists verify information before they submit it. GG did not attempt any verification. He just went straight to print. In the article you posted the subject matter was an article GG published slagging people off for making unverified claims. It really couldn't be more simple.

If you disagree with that, you've been reading the Guardian without a critical eye for to long. Which is what you've been accusing us less intelligent beings than yourself of doing, albeit different media outlets I expect cos the Guardian's never wrong.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Stan wrote:
Marshy wrote:BTW, you DO realise that cifWatch is a Zionist site that no one even takes seriously, don't you? Why? because they're blatantly full of so much rubbish.

I mean, let's look at this article on GG by cifWatch.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/04/17/benghazi ... on-attack/

GG, and others are being called a hypocrite. And the reason they're being called a hypocrite is that they said the media was wrong to assume the Boston bombers were Muslims before there was any evidence that they were, yet they were happy to call the guy who made a movie about Muhammad that sparked riots to an Israeli Jew without any evidence.

However, there is no double standard here at all. the guy who made the movie himself said he is an Israeli Jew! Yes, he was lying, but you can't accuse GG of calling him an Israel Jew incorrectly when the guy is the one lying.

Brilliant, just exposes cifWatch and their crazy smears of comparing apples to oranges.

Just to clarify again, GG and others did not jump to conclusions without evidence and call this filmmaker an Israeli Jew. They called him an Israeli Jew because that is what the guy said he is.
well if you want to talk about this, of course GG was wrong. And a hypocrite.

Responsible journalists verify information before they submit it. GG did not attempt any verification. He just went straight to print. In the article you posted the subject matter was an article GG published slagging people off for making unverified claims. It really couldn't be more simple.

If you disagree with that, you've been reading the Guardian without a critical eye for to long. Which is what you've been accusing us less intelligent beings than yourself of doing, albeit different media outlets I expect cos the Guardian's never wrong.
You are talking nonsense.

There is a HUGE difference.

In one, the media were jumping to conclusions based on no hard evidence.
In the other, GG claimed the guy was an Israeli because the guy himself gave an interview to the WSJ in which he claimed he was Israeli.

I mean, if someone kills someone, and then lies and say they were a Muslim convert, and the media reports that a Muslim did this, NO ONE would blame the media for publishing incorrect information, because the guy is saying he is Muslim, and so one has to take him for his word.

So, GG did nothing wrong - he took the word of the guy. This is completely different to jumping to conclusions.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:48 pm

No. That unverified claim he went to print with resulted in huge ramifications. Respectable journalists have a responsibility to check the facts under every circumstance.

For him to write an article condemning those that do not verify facts before going to print shows he is the ultimate hypocrite.

I wont be responding to any more posts on this sub topic. I'm not wasting my time going round in circles.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:59 am

Stan wrote:No. That unverified claim he went to print with resulted in huge ramifications. Respectable journalists have a responsibility to check the facts under every circumstance.

For him to write an article condemning those that do not verify facts before going to print shows he is the ultimate hypocrite.

I wont be responding to any more posts on this sub topic. I'm not wasting my time going round in circles.

The reason you won't be posting anymore on this is because you have been caught making a completely silly comparison.

Let's make this clear - it isn't the job of a journalist to question the belief of someone if someone claims to be following that belief.

If the 7/7 bombers makes a video and claim they are Jihadis, then it isn't the job of a journalist to question that, and it is perfectly reasonable for the journalist to report them as Jihadis. If the bombers are lying (and hence the journalist is reporting something incorrect), it is the fault of the bombers, and not the journalist, for this misinformation.

If the Woolwich killers say they killed the guy because of us killing Muslims in Muslim lands, it isn't the job of a journalist to question that. It is perfectly reasonable for a journalist to report the Woolwich killers as Muslim converts wanting to kill us for the reasons specified. If the Woolwich killers are lying (and hence the journalist is reporting something incorrect), it is the fault of the killers, and not the journalist, for this misinformation.

If the guy who made the video about Mohammed claimed to the media in an interview that he is an Israeli Jew, then it is perfectly reasonable for a journalist to report him as an Israeli Jew. If the guy who made the video is lying, (and hence the journalist is reporting something incorrect), it is the fault of the guy who made the video, and not the journalist, for this misinformation.

So GG did nothing wrong, and if you can't see this, then you are beyond hope.

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:01 am

Lee Gib wrote: You are more interested in being seen to win an argument then actually responding to what the other person is saying. It's pure arrogance and if this is how you debated on WATRB I'm not surprised they gave you a hard time.
The reason I got banned from WATRB was because mob-justice prevailed.

I joined as a new user in 2012, and I was critical of Mark Hughes (not because we got off to a bad start, but because I felt he wasn't the right man), and this pissed some people off and so they took a dislike to me.

The second point was that I defended Taarabt (the majority dislike him there), and so every time someone tried to make Tarbs a scapegoat. I defended him ... of course, I wasn't saying there isn't legitimate criticism of Tarbs, I just found the threads that we are where we are because of Tarbs to be madness.

Then there was a thread saying Muslims hate us and other nonsense like "not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims", I destroyed those arguments, but it made me some more enemies.

Then I was critical of Harry, saying he will take us down, and that's when it started getting worse - people were getting mad at me and giving out abuse, and so I gave it back. At no point did I use profanities (even though they were used against me), but I am not one to let bullies get away with things.

The final straw came when there was a thread about an R who had died in Afghanistan a few years back, and someone created a RIP thread.
I posted something very similar to "RIP, so sorry to hear of this, I wish our politicians would stop sending our troops on endless wars so we don't have cases like this", and all hell broke loose. I was called all sorts of names, and the thread got polluted, and I got blamed. Ironically, all those claiming to support the troops ... well, I supported the troops more than them, because I wanted the troops to not go fight in endless wars! In the end, I edited my message (in case that guy's family sees the message and are offended - which I don't think is likely, but still), but the abuse continued, and then one of the moderator, a good one actually, said there were too many fights because of me, and created a poll whether I should be banned for life, and 60% or so said I should. And so that was it.

It's sad really, because I think most of the moderators were cool and reasonable, but ultimately, they have a forum to run and want to keep the majority happy, and so I had to go. Myths often get created, and one of the myth was that I was very rude and looking to start fights, but yet if I ask someone to find one post where I am very rude (without reason), they wouldn't be able to find one. The only time I called anyone any names like "stupid" was when that person had been bullying others by calling them names. I never called anyone any vulgar words (which others do). I never indulged in racism (whilst others do, like saying MBia and Diakite are proof that black players are athletic but lack intelligence) - yet these posters still continue to post, and I get a life ban.

Of course, I could easily create a sock-puppet and post and no one will ever know, but I am a man of honour, and sadly, the moderators did not reciprocate the honour and let me post one last thread on QPR before I left.

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:21 pm

Regarding your ridiculous assertion that nobody (meaning you, who probably had never even heard of CIFW until yesterday) takes CIFW seriously, only yesterday The Guardian was forced into issuing yet another correction to one of it's stories by CIFW.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/06/05/cif-watc ... st-israel/

Just for good order, here's another correction CIFW forced the Guardian to make from last week.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/05/28/cif-watc ... prisoners/


It's quite amazing how much sh1t the Guardian just makes up.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:58 pm

Stan wrote:Regarding your ridiculous assertion that nobody (meaning you, who probably had never even heard of CIFW until yesterday) takes CIFW seriously, only yesterday The Guardian was forced into issuing yet another correction to one of it's stories by CIFW.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/06/05/cif-watc ... st-israel/

Just for good order, here's another correction CIFW forced the Guardian to make from last week.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/05/28/cif-watc ... prisoners/


It's quite amazing how much sh1t the Guardian just makes up.

You seem to lack logic. Just because cifWatch stated an article made an error, and the publication in question corrected the error, it doesn't imply anyone takes cifWatch seriously.
They might find factual errors (like the number is 51 instead of 62), but it doesn't imply the substance of what they right is taken seriously - it isn't. And the reason is because they're a Zionist website that spins so much sh1t that no one even takes their spin seriously.

The perfect example is GG, GG responds to everyone who criticises him, he had a huge debate with Sam Harris, he had a huge debate with Andrew Sullivan, he has replied extensively against those who have criticised his past positions, but he didn't even bother to reply to cifWatch over their articles on him, because he doesn't even take their rubbish seriously!!!

I provided the perfect example of their rubbish when they tried to smear him for referring to the movie maker as an Israeli Jew, no one took it seriously, no one apart from the likes of you who are dishonest and will believe in incorrect comparisons :P

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:00 pm

This is an article that exposes cifWatch for what they are, in case someone hasn't come across them before.

http://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2012/03/ ... wn-debate/

User avatar
Stan
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: N3

Post by Stan » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:16 pm

To funny. The Guardian have been forced to issue 2 corrections in the last 10 days & you are looking to smear. Why dont you just accept the fact that your beloved Guardian regularly prints lies? Afterall, you proudly informed us of your wide open mind? Not only that, you did your best to belittle others for not questioning what the media says.

The truth is, your ilk aren't that bothered with the truth, as long as the lies reinforce your world view.
next year, we'll be champions..

User avatar
Marshy
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:05 pm

Post by Marshy » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:25 pm

Stan wrote:To funny. The Guardian have been forced to issue 2 corrections in the last 10 days & you are looking to smear. Why dont you just accept the fact that your beloved Guardian regularly prints lies? Afterall, you proudly informed us of your wide open mind? Not only that, you did your best to belittle others for not questioning what the media says.

The truth is, your ilk aren't that bothered with the truth, as long as the lies reinforce your world view.
The sign of a good publication is that when their mistake is pointed out, they correct it. Like The Guardian.

cifWatch meanwhile, keeps spreading their baseless smears, and aren't willing to correct them.

Now that's what I call funny.

Also what I find funny is that you know I destroyed that cifWatch smear on GG for calling the filmmaker an Israeli Jew when that filmmaker himself described himself as an Israeli Jew. I provided clear examples of how ridiculous cifWatch were, and even you finally saw this, and that's really upset you. You're so upset that your ilk aren't bothered with the truth and want to believe whatever rubbish reinforces your view of the world, that you keep believing that GG was at fault for calling that guy an Israeli Jew, and not the actual guy himself who lied he was an Israeli Jew.

You have been exposed.

Hehehehehe :D

Post Reply