MonkeyRocks Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 It's very subtle. You need to read between the lines. "You need to read between the lines".....or look for things that are not there. I'm anything but racist but it's views like the one you have expressed that make a lot of people think they cannot question or debate anything to do with religion, race, culture, etc. This can be done without being prejudice or racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Just like to ask : do you actually believe what the OP posted ? TBH nothing surprises me about fundamentalist godbotherers these days, no matter which woman hating, intolerant, desert dwelling God they believe in. Mysterious ways my <REMOVED>! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 It's very subtle. You need to read between the lines. Can't be bothered. I take things as they are presented and try not to look in to why people post something. I don't care why things get posted, but I will always try and reply to the topic posted, rather than try to read in some ulterior motive, otherwise, you start to look like some kind of conspiracy theory loon;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CXC3000 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Just seen some previous articles from the rag known as the Express : Dunblane Controversy On 8 March 2009, the Scottish edition of the Sunday Express published a front page article critical of survivors of the 1996 Dunblane massacre, entitled "Anniversary Shame of Dunblane Survivors". The article criticised the by-then 18-year-old survivors for posting "shocking blogs and photographs of themselves on the internet", revealing that they drank alcohol, made rude gestures, and talked about their sex lives. The article provoked several complaints, leading to the printing of a front-page apology two weeks later, and a subsequent adjudication by the Press Complaints Commission described the article as a "serious error of judgement" and stated that "Although the editor had taken steps to resolve the complaint, and rightly published an apology, the breach of the Code was so serious that no apology could remedy it". This one seems to be so stupid, it's actually embarrassing to mention it : "Muslim Plot to kill Pope" The issue published on Saturday September 18, 2010 gave very prominent front page headlines to a story that stated that "islamic terrorists"working under the guise of "bogus street cleaners [had] allegedly hatched an audacious plot to blow up the pope". The plot, which the Express revealed had been foiled by a police raid at the "11th hour" was said to involve "plotters with links to Al Qaeda [who] planned 'a double blow to the infidel′ by assassinating the head of the Roman Catholic church and slaughtering hundreds of pilgrims and well-wishers." The Express further alleged "An investigation is also under way to determine if the foreign nationals had entered Britain legally and were entitled to work here." The six street cleaners arrested by the counter-terrorism police were said to be "no credible threat" and were released without charge the same day. In very small font on page nine of their issue for Sunday 19th, the Express noted that the men had been released. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Express#Controversial_themes Oh, and the owner of the above toilet paper is none other than porn king Richard Desmond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 do you actually believe what the OP posted ? More importantly, can you offer proof that it is not true? I doubt that you can, 'cause I have a sneaky suspicion that you can't, hence your attack on the poster, rather than the content. FTR, many other news providers are starting to pick up on this story, as illustrated by a search of Google News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Just seen some previous articles from the rag known as the Express Which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion other than to divert the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CXC3000 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Which has nothing to do with the topic under discussion other than to divert the thread. Not at all. If the same article was posted in the Sun or Daily Mail, I'm sure you'd be agreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyRocks Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Not at all. If the same article was posted in the Sun or Daily Mail, I'm sure you'd be agreeing with me. At the end of the day there are factions of nutters in every religion/country who do horrible and ludicrous things, end of story. Even if this story isn't true a lot of the comments in the thread can be applied to thousands of other similar actions. That said, the thread is based on the assumption that the story is indeed true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Not at all. OK. What're your thoughts on these religious imbeciles? If the same article was posted in the Sun or Daily Mail, I'm sure you'd be agreeing with me. It concerns me not where a story originates from, providing it is factual and true which (this case) appears to be. As I said previously, other news agencies are now covering the story. Are you saying the story is false? If not, are we to see your condemnation of these loons who want to deprive people of a food stuff, based on the fact that it "resembles a christian symbol"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fibutton Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Perhaps we could make our own at home....just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.