FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: mobiusmale

Until you look beyond religous and political divides there will be no peace

Until you destroy religions and politics, and expose who invented and instigates them, there will be no peace

a reply to: mobiusmalewow now eu wants to do the same pc bull crap that is done in america when a muslim terrorist does an attack its labeled as a disgruntled employee or a crazy individual with no ties to saudi arabia or the muslim faith even wen there is a preponderance of proof they were working as part of terror cell. really if its a spade call it a spade people .

deny the ignorance

a reply to: mobiusmale

Telling the truth, and the whole truth is never wrong. This action is a lie just as not telling the whole story is a lie. If they choose to be liars, they can not be reporters.

a reply to: mobiusmale

" FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims "


Is it alright to reveal if they are East Germans ?

a reply to: mobiusmale

You must think we're drooling idiots, that simply believe anything that is written down somewhere. It's very clear what game you play: the blame game. You and your kind simply want to blame - others. If it aren't negroes, it are muslims. If it aren't muslims it must be continentals. Europeans. Russians. Jews. Women. Presidential candidates. Whatever, whomever - but NEVER, EVER would it be you. You're spotless, and from your high horse keep spouting foul messages that invariably target whole populations. Populations that are abundantly present, mostly totally innocent of the fouls you accuse them of, but hey, whatever, you're free to trash whomever you want, right?

Asshole.

a reply to: mobiusmale

The EU Commission President is a known alcoholic. What do you expect?

Sooner or later the european people will demand referendums and it will be the end of the despotic EU.

It would be an interesting twist if the brits do the brexit with no major issues and in the talks they will have with all the european countries about the new relationship and the new trade deals they start forging a new EU. I wouldn´t be surprised if they tried to pull something like that.

a reply to: mobiusmale

The EU Commission President is a known alcoholic. What do you expect?

Sooner or later the european people will demand referendums and it will be the end of the despotic EU.

It would be an interesting twist if the brits do the brexit with no major issues and in the talks they will have with all the european countries about the new relationship and the new trade deals they start forging a new EU. I wouldn´t be surprised if they tried to pull something like that.

a reply to: mobiusmale

The EU Commission President is a known alcoholic. What do you expect?

Sooner or later the european people will demand referendums and it will be the end of the despotic EU.

It would be an interesting twist if the brits do the brexit with no major issues and in the talks they will have with all the european countries about the new relationship and the new trade deals they start forging a new EU. I wouldn´t be surprised if they tried to pull something like that.

FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN: Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims

It's to be hoped that the British press tells 'em where to head in?

a reply to: mobiusmale

Why call a cow a cow. Gives milk and run around in a green field. Walks like a cow, does as a cow should do.

Sh*ts on everything ......

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: mobiusmale

You must think we're drooling idiots, that simply believe anything that is written down somewhere. It's very clear what game you play: the blame game. You and your kind simply want to blame - others. If it aren't negroes, it are muslims. If it aren't muslims it must be continentals. Europeans. Russians. Jews. Women. Presidential candidates. Whatever, whomever - but NEVER, EVER would it be you. You're spotless, and from your high horse keep spouting foul messages that invariably target whole populations. Populations that are abundantly present, mostly totally innocent of the fouls you accuse them of, but hey, whatever, you're free to trash whomever you want, right?

Asshole.

I can see that decorum is not one of your strong suits.

The issue here is that the Press should...must actually...report on matters of public interest, based on the facts of the matter.

If someone, who is affiliated with ISIS (an Islamic Terrorist Group) and is acting on their behalf, goes into an airport and starts shooting people, and then explodes a homicide vest...then that is what should be reported - not some whitewashed drivel that attempts to avoid the truth, because it might offend somebody.

If a "White Supremacist" gets up on a soapbox and calls for the lynching of Black people, or the expulsion of Jews...then that is exactly what should be reported. As a Caucasian, I am not going to get all tied up in knots about it, or think that it reflects badly on me...I am not a White Supremacist.

If an African American Black Lives Matter organizer tells its non-Black supporters that they have to march at the back of the parade...then that is exactly what should be reported. And the fact that this was clearly a Racist dictate, does not reflect badly on all African Americans.

Given that, as you say, you are not a drooling idiot, you should be able to understand the distinction between truth-telling and blame-gaming.

originally posted by: mobiusmale
I can see that decorum is not one of your strong suits.

Actually - it is. But not in the face of such obvious and serious stupidity - not when somebody hurts entire populations simply because they exist and he searches for a scape-goat. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, for example, are peaceloving, civilised people. And there are actually terrorists that aren't muslims, think for example of Breitvik. So, if you fail to deny even the most essential type of ignorance - that of blaming entire groups for the acts of individuals - I sometimes simply have no other choice but to label an asshole an asshole. I'm not even sorry for that.

The issue here is that the Press should...must actually...report on matters of public interest, based on the facts of the matter.

Actually - no, they must not. Yes, it is the proper thing to do. Yes, there are plenty of journalists and newspapers that really try to. But there are waaaay too many rags that try to pass for newspapers, that spout nonsensical and dangerous tripe. Nobody stops them - free speech, I believe, and that includes the freedom to be ignorant or project the acts of individuals on entire populations.

If someone, who is affiliated with ISIS (an Islamic Terrorist Group) and is acting on their behalf, goes into an airport and starts shooting people, and then explodes a homicide vest...then that is what should be reported - not some whitewashed drivel that attempts to avoid the truth, because it might offend somebody.

Indeed - if a person that is provenly affiliated with a terrorist cell, whatever cell it may be, shoots people or blows them (and him/herself) up, that should be reported. But if there is no proof of affiliation with such a cell, than a journalist should stick to the facts: a person blew him/herself up, period. And whatever religion he or she has is meaningless too, as is his/her sexual orientation, skin colour or nationality. A person blew another person up, or shot another person. THAT are the facts.

As soon as a terrorist cell published its affiliation with aforementioned criminal, say IS, it is of course necessary and good to publish this too: "attack claimed by IS". Please note: claimed by, as we still have no proof. And yes, IS is - sic - the Islamic State, but that does not signify that for example people that flee from the Middle-East and enter Europe should be banned. Regardless their religion etc.

Never, ever blame the guilt of ONE on all. It's sickening when people do this.

If a "White Supremacist" gets up on a soapbox and calls for the lynching of Black people, or the expulsion of Jews...then that is exactly what should be reported.

Yes, but without the meaningless labels. So, a person got up a soapbox and called for lynching of black people. That should be reported. That does not make him a "white supremacist", he could be a confused soul, mad or simply stupid (most probably the latter). And of course that most certainly does not signify that all white people would advocate such nonsensical views!

As a Caucasian, I am not going to get all tied up in knots about it, or think that it reflects badly on me...I am not a White Supremacist.

No, but you are white (I assume) - hence, if I would write "whites should be expelled because white man Breitvik killed innocent people" you would and SHOULD be offended. The mere fact that you were born with a pigmentation problem does not make you inferiour or a killer. Likewise, if one keeps spouting that "muslims should be expelled because a muslim killed.. etc." I feel that is inappropriate and stupid. It pisses me off.

If an African American Black Lives Matter organizer tells its non-Black supporters that they have to march at the back of the parade...then that is exactly what should be reported. And the fact that this was clearly a Racist dictate, does not reflect badly on all African Americans.

No, but if the newpaper then writes "blacks demand whites to march at the back of the parade" it would be grossly exaggerated, up to the point I'd regard that as a lie. The proper heading in my book would be "person neglects human rights". Not very exciting, not really news, it does not sell, so the bloody journalist will indeed often stoop as low a to generalize upon the point of becoming a racist him/herself.

Given that, as you say, you are not a drooling idiot, you should be able to understand the distinction between truth-telling and blame-gaming.

I do, hence my original response.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: mobiusmale
I can see that decorum is not one of your strong suits.

Actually - it is. But not in the face of such obvious and serious stupidity - not when somebody hurts entire populations simply because they exist and he searches for a scape-goat. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, for example, are peaceloving, civilised people. And there are actually terrorists that aren't muslims, think for example of Breitvik. So, if you fail to deny even the most essential type of ignorance - that of blaming entire groups for the acts of individuals - I sometimes simply have no other choice but to label an asshole an asshole. I'm not even sorry for that.

The issue here is that the Press should...must actually...report on matters of public interest, based on the facts of the matter.

Actually - no, they must not. Yes, it is the proper thing to do. Yes, there are plenty of journalists and newspapers that really try to. But there are waaaay too many rags that try to pass for newspapers, that spout nonsensical and dangerous tripe. Nobody stops them - free speech, I believe, and that includes the freedom to be ignorant or project the acts of individuals on entire populations.

If someone, who is affiliated with ISIS (an Islamic Terrorist Group) and is acting on their behalf, goes into an airport and starts shooting people, and then explodes a homicide vest...then that is what should be reported - not some whitewashed drivel that attempts to avoid the truth, because it might offend somebody.

Indeed - if a person that is provenly affiliated with a terrorist cell, whatever cell it may be, shoots people or blows them (and him/herself) up, that should be reported. But if there is no proof of affiliation with such a cell, than a journalist should stick to the facts: a person blew him/herself up, period. And whatever religion he or she has is meaningless too, as is his/her sexual orientation, skin colour or nationality. A person blew another person up, or shot another person. THAT are the facts.

As soon as a terrorist cell published its affiliation with aforementioned criminal, say IS, it is of course necessary and good to publish this too: "attack claimed by IS". Please note: claimed by, as we still have no proof. And yes, IS is - sic - the Islamic State, but that does not signify that for example people that flee from the Middle-East and enter Europe should be banned. Regardless their religion etc.

Never, ever blame the guilt of ONE on all. It's sickening when people do this.

If a "White Supremacist" gets up on a soapbox and calls for the lynching of Black people, or the expulsion of Jews...then that is exactly what should be reported.

Yes, but without the meaningless labels. So, a person got up a soapbox and called for lynching of black people. That should be reported. That does not make him a "white supremacist", he could be a confused soul, mad or simply stupid (most probably the latter). And of course that most certainly does not signify that all white people would advocate such nonsensical views!

As a Caucasian, I am not going to get all tied up in knots about it, or think that it reflects badly on me...I am not a White Supremacist.

No, but you are white (I assume) - hence, if I would write "whites should be expelled because white man Breitvik killed innocent people" you would and SHOULD be offended. The mere fact that you were born with a pigmentation problem does not make you inferiour or a killer. Likewise, if one keeps spouting that "muslims should be expelled because a muslim killed.. etc." I feel that is inappropriate and stupid. It pisses me off.

If an African American Black Lives Matter organizer tells its non-Black supporters that they have to march at the back of the parade...then that is exactly what should be reported. And the fact that this was clearly a Racist dictate, does not reflect badly on all African Americans.

No, but if the newpaper then writes "blacks demand whites to march at the back of the parade" it would be grossly exaggerated, up to the point I'd regard that as a lie. The proper heading in my book would be "person neglects human rights". Not very exciting, not really news, it does not sell, so the bloody journalist will indeed often stoop as low a to generalize upon the point of becoming a racist him/herself.

Given that, as you say, you are not a drooling idiot, you should be able to understand the distinction between truth-telling and blame-gaming.

I do, hence my original response.

Figure out these headlines.

Someone attacked some boats, today.

Some people violated human rights.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Figure out these headlines.

Someone attacked some boats, today.

Some people violated human rights.

Cool, isn't it?

As soon as I started to read the first post on this thread, I thought: "This is a Daily Express story." And lo and behold, it was.

The Express is the lowest of the UK press, and that's a pretty low bar already.

It only demonstrates any degree of competence at all when it is inventing stuff.

The key paragraphs in the Express story are reproduced here:

“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”

Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”

Now look at those two paragraphs again. They are both accurate. However, their juxtaposition creates a false impression that they are related. They are not.

The Express has dishonestly sellotaped together a paragraph about media portrayals of Muslims and a paragraph about the Leveson report, two subjects with nothing in common at all, and pretended that the EU is trying to censor stories about terrorism.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie. And it's kind of bitterly ironic that it's being eagerly swallowed here on ATS, where it is an article of faith among posters that the mainstream media are dishonest propaganda-merchants.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: smurfy
There are loads of English rags that go out on a limb to cry 'muslim terror' before everything is properly known, and of course that is also used in turn to promote anti-immigration as-if. The same goes for some European rags, however English jingoism is always the undercurrent, well propagated by these right-wing rags.
Most English just want to get on with their lives, but there is always rent-a-mob around the corner.

When's the last time a newspaper in the UK blamed islamic terrorism and was wrong?

The Daily Mail, completely false story,

*
www.theguardian.com...
*Note the other strategically placed story about high UK wages just below the main article, to consolidate the invasion myth.
Picture file, files.abovetopsecret.com...

The Sun March 2016, completely false story,
www.presstv.com...

The Sun, 2015, columnist writer,
On 17 April 2015, The Sun's columnist Katie Hopkins called migrants to Britain "cockroaches" and "feral humans" and said they were "spreading like the norovirus". Her remarks were condemned by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. In a statement released on 24 April 2015, High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein stated that Hopkins' used "language very similar to that employed by Rwanda's Kangura newspaper and Radio Mille Collines during the run up to the 1994 genocide", and noted that both media organizations were subsequently convicted by an international tribunal of public incitement to commit genocide.

The Sun August 2016, false story without basis,
www.middleeasteye.net...
All recent!
See, the thing is they don't just do stories of the day, they make things up to try to create false images in people's minds to begin with.
They do the same things in just about every other topic as well...ask Liverpudlians why no one wants to sell The Sun.
These people have no bounds, quite evil really, and abuse freedom of the press priviledge.
But like I said, most English people, including myself, do see through all the guff.

So, you posted all that as a way of saying "No, Sprocket, they never have published a story blaming an act of terror on Islamic terrorism when it was something else."


nice.


As for the Sun link, sorry, I never click those because I am a Liverpool fan, but I really doubt it is a retraction of a story about Islamic terrorism.

Government brainwashing. Is that the last step before the gas chamber??