Off Topic Paris Attacks !

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
UnitedinRed said:
Yes but cops also have to protect themselves. Some take this literally and are almost gang like, which is wrong.

However shafting someone who may well be a friend as well as a fellow copper, is a moral dilemma.
Click to expand...


true that lad. I did read there GMP were called by very old people who were lonely and had trouble looking after each other, cops stopped and had a brew and a chat, and you had ****s on twitter giving the cops **** for it. That's the kind of policing I like.
 
donga kloppo said:
I really shouldn't have to say this, but nowhere in this thread by me (or any other poster) do I believe the accusation has been made that he sympathises with the terrorists. The accusation is that he sees attacks upon the twisted version of Islam that the terrorists hold as personal attacks upon himself, as it is the same faith he holds. Tough. It's not about him and his sensitivities. Or you either, for that matter.
Click to expand...

I really shouldnt have to repeat this either. But he's only ever taken offence to ppl claiming that Islam is responsible for their actions. So what should he do Donga, just say nothing? Not try and tackle misconceptions bcos if he does object, he'll be classed as thinking he's a victim? Maybe it's not him being sensitive here, well no less sensitive than you or those who see the temerity in him trying to defend his faith.
 
The problem with this tame friendly is that there doesn't seem one Frenchman taking it seriously enough to put Sterling on a stretcher.
 
Treble said:
I really shouldnt have to repeat this either. But he's only ever taken offence to ppl claiming that Islam is responsible for their actions. So what should he do Donga, just say nothing? Not try and tackle misconceptions bcos if he does object, he'll be classed as thinking he's a victim? Maybe it's not him being sensitive here, well no less sensitive than you or those who see the temerity in him trying to defend his faith.
Click to expand...

Then why did you say he was being accused of defending terrorists?
 
Treble said:
I really shouldnt have to repeat this either. But he's only ever taken offence to ppl claiming that Islam is responsible for their actions. So what should he do Donga, just say nothing? Not try and tackle misconceptions bcos if he does object, he'll be classed as thinking he's a victim? Maybe it's not him being sensitive here, well no less sensitive than you or those who see the temerity in him trying to defend his faith.
Click to expand...

But treble, it is responsible. The difference between Isis and normal people who follow Islam is the interpretation of the words they read.

That's not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists or that Isis represents all Muslims.

Religions biggest flaw is how loosely it is written and how contradictionary it is. Its purposely left open to interpretation.
 
UnitedinRed said:
But treble, it is responsible. The difference between Isis and normal people who follow Islam is the interpretation of the words they read.

That's not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists or that Isis represents all Muslims.

Religions biggest flaw is how loosely it is written and how contradictionary it is. Its purposely left open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Religion's biggest flaw is it gives people the feeling they're justified in acting like ****s. A bit like football in a sense, but far worse and more ****y.
 
Watford_R said:
Religion's biggest flaw is it gives people the feeling they're justified in acting like ****s. A bit like football in a sense, but far worse and more ****y.
Click to expand...

Well yeh, how that person interprets the text.

Your comparison with football fans is interesting. A minority once spent its time using violence etc, all English clubs were banned. The world certainly considered all English the same.
 
UnitedinRed said:
But treble, it is responsible. The difference between Isis and normal people who follow Islam is the interpretation of the words they read.

That's not suggesting all Muslims are terrorists or that Isis represents all Muslims.

Religions biggest flaw is how loosely it is written and how contradictionary it is. Its purposely left open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Man, I agree with a lot of what you say, but that's irrelevant here. Live and let live! The guy has made his position re ISIS very clear.

In my view, believe what you want to believe. Just don't try and ram it down my throat, and equally I won't attack your beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock and Treble
UnitedinRed said:
Well yeh, how that person interprets the text.

Your comparison with football fans is interesting. A minority once spent its time using violence etc, all English clubs were banned. The world certainly considered all English the same.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If a group of Millwall fans went around stabbing people every week, it wouldn't really be enough for the club to say "they don't represent us, nothing to do with us".

Religion of peace so I'm told.
 
donga kloppo said:
Then why did you say he was being accused of defending terrorists?
Click to expand...

You wrote this a while back...

More a case of some thinking that an attack on the perpetrators is an attack upon them.
Click to expand...

Seemed to me to imply that he was defending the perpertrators. To which I replied...

No that hasnt happened at all. He may have defended his faith but never the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

Meaning that he doesnt connect with the perpertrators at all.

You then stated that's not what you meant at all. To which I replied...

I've gone back and re-read what you posted and if that's not what you've said then I dont know what your point is...
Click to expand...

And having drawn a line under the misunderstanding I tried to move back to the original point about him thinking he was a victim.

You know even if you say he isnt the victim, I could understand. But the reference to the 100+ dead, or any comparison to them, comes across as though his intention is to take something away from them. Which I thought was unfair.
 
Treble said:
You wrote this a while back...



Seemed to me to imply that he was defending the perpertrators. To which I replied...



Meaning that he doesnt connect with the perpertrators at all.

You then stated that's not what you meant at all. To which I replied...



And having drawn a line under the misunderstanding I tried to move back to the original point about him thinking he was a victim.

You know even if you say he isnt the victim, I could understand. But the reference to the 100+ dead, or any comparison to them, comes across as though his intention is to take something away from them. Which I thought was unfair.
Click to expand...

Still completely nonplussed as to how any of that cnoversation could lead to a misunderstanding about how Spurlock was accused of defending terrorists.
 
Treble said:
You wrote this a while back...



Seemed to me to imply that he was defending the perpertrators. To which I replied...



Meaning that he doesnt connect with the perpertrators at all.

You then stated that's not what you meant at all. To which I replied...



And having drawn a line under the misunderstanding I tried to move back to the original point about him thinking he was a victim.

You know even if you say he isnt the victim, I could understand. But the reference to the 100+ dead, or any comparison to them, comes across as though his intention is to take something away from them. Which I thought was unfair.
Click to expand...


Well we will agree to disagree there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back