| Bounty placed on Bollywood actress' head after Hindu-Muslim film outrage |
|  |
|
|
Post Reply |
Forum |
|
|
|
Yep, another outrage.
Armed guards are needed after riots and a bounty offered placed an actress after she starred in a film depicting a Hindu/Muslim romance. Religious nut-cases want the film banned and the actress punished.
Oh wait, Hindu religious nut-cases. Sorry, wrong forum.
Related link: Bounty placed on Bollywood actress' head after Hindu-Muslim film outrage
|
|
|
|
|
No one said that something so commonplace in the Muslim world couldn’t possibly happen outside of it. But show me another story like this. I can show you MILLIONS of Muslim versions. Now why do you think that is? Oh right, you don’t know and don’t care.
|
|
|
|
It's not the numbers, it's the principle. You always seem to be touting Islam as uniquely bad. I don't think it's so unique. It's just winning in the number of atrocities carried out in the name of religion at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Actually, you have that backwards. You're using this one-off to avoid the real principle which is that Islam regularly demands similar treatment. There's nothing in Hinduism that comes close. That's not to say that some Hindus, as here, aren't over-the-top sensitive but that's just human nature. Only Islam mandates this kind of violence.
Modified by Jim at Sat, Nov 18, 2017, 16:06:04
|
|
|
|
what was that - chopped liver?
somehow the West climbed up into more civilised ways these last few centuries, still not sure how it happened.
|
|
|
|
First, 13's point was obviously that this story demonstrates that Hinduism's just as dangerous as Islam. If that went over your head, please ask him. I'm rather embarrassed for you frankly. Excessive empathy, I guess.
As for your links, again, lame and stupid. Very. I'll say what I've said to you so many times and which I'll repeat but it will go right over your head, I know -- people of all stripes, religious or not, can be violent and can fight and murder others. But none of them have an ideological imperative to do so. You could understand this in a flash if you wanted to.
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe you don't know what it means, but you can use it in a sentence. That's a start.
Jim, I just put links up because there are so many. In fact, there are too many to list. I assume you know how to use Google and you can do that too.
Lastly, Jim, you are an asshole and a bully. And I feel sorry for you because you are not capable of realizing that and changing.
|
|
|
|
You just admitted that you’re posting links to articles you haven’t read and have no interest in reading. I mistakenly forgot for a moment you were a troll and not able or willing to discuss things honestly and looked through them all. Thus you wasted my time with bad faith noise and distractions. And yet you bleat on and on like the over-amped crybaby you are about forum rules or protocols. You, Drek, are the asshole. Childish, foolish and ignorant.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 11:23:53
|
|
|
|
I did read those links, Jim. I said that there were too many to list. I guess I was not clear in my post. I did read those 4 links, but not the hundreds of other ones.
Did you know that India ranks 4th in Religious violence across the world? If you know that then we'll know that you actually read those links like you claim to have done.
|
|
|
|
There’s a difference between violence between communities however they’re defined, religious being just one of many possible identifiers (like family, nationality, ethnicity, class) and violence furthered by the religion itself. The Irish troubles weren’t based on religion although Protestants fought Catholics.
A child could understand this. Why can’t you?
This is religious:
So is this:
But that’s not what happened in northern Ireland.
See the difference? No, you can’t. You haven’t yet so why should you now? None so blind ...
Modified by Jim at Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 12:07:06
|
|
|
|
So when an IRA bomb blew up right in front of me in London a few days after the big Harrods bomb, I should have thought, oh it's alright, thisis bomb is for political reasons, it's not about religion. That would have made everything better?
A religion is just an ideology with some God at the centre of it isn't it? What does the God bit matter really? Why are you so fixated on the Muslim ideology, when there are people dying on account of other ideologies too? Some with God in the middle, some with capitalism in the middle, some with socialism in the middle, some with a historical grievance, plenty of variations.
See the similarity? No you can't. None so blind ...
|
|
|
|
Don’t be stupid. Of course it mattered. But no one pretended then that the IRA’s motivation was anything different than what it was and it was only by addressing that motivation honestly that the conflict was eventually resolved (to the extent it was).
In this case, Britain does the opposite. Instead of honestly addressing the motivation it runs and hides from the truth.
Ask yourself, is this actually happening in your country now and not Pakistan or some other third-world Islamic hell hole?
|
|
|
|
Yes, the motivation for terrorist acts is an interesting issue, and whether the type of motivation is significant, but well, you just posted an irrelevant article from Breitbart? Why? What's wrong with you?
If you read the Yorkshire Evening Post, there is more to the story. In fact, Islam might have nothing to do with it. Dope (psychosis?) in the attic, drinking, suspected extra-marital affair. No mention of western clothes. And the report reads like a report of court proceedings.
So who are you going to trust? The reporter who attended the court hearing and wrote it up for the Post, or Breitbart, which has a clear anti-Islam agenda and is happy to take the story, second hand (or third, they link to the Times) and headline that she was murdered for wearing western clothes. You eat this presumptive shite up don't you? Fits in with your bias.
The court case continues, and so far as we know, it might turn out to be violent husband reacting to accusations of him having an affair. Sorry if it turns out this way. That would be disappointing for you wouldn't it?
Related link: Yorkshire Evening Post report.
|
|
|
|
Come now. Breitbart quotes the prosecutor:
Mr Campbell said Ms Wooding had started wearing Western clothing days before she was killed on May 11 at a party held at the house of her husband’s friend Yasmin Ahmed, who along with Mr Ali, denies murder.
|
|
|
|
The prosecutor said many other things too. Breitbart's headline was that the woman was killed for wearing western clothes. It might have been a factor, but there are many other factors: her suspicion her husband was having an affair, the attic full of dope, the drinking. But Breitbart jumps on the western clothes factor as the deciding one, because that suggests the murder was due to Muslim fundamentalism and intransigence. So other motivations and nuances are ignored or demoted. You can't trust such a biased outlet as Breitbart!!
Modified by 13 at Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 14:38:45
|
|
|
|
First, you were wrong. Admit it. You claimed falsely that Breitbart lied about her returning to wear western clothing and that was because you rather stupidly assumed that the Yorkshire paper was telling the whole story.
Here’s another article that quotes the prosecutor:
Clear that up.
|
|
|
|
Ok, your article said this:
Mr Campbell said the marriage had been under strain and Miss Wooding had
started wearing Western clothes again in the days before her death.
Nowhere in your article does it say she was killed because she was wearing western clothes. Please show me where it says that. And I don't want a link to Breitbart, please.
Maybe the reality was that the marriage was an awful mess with the possible inclusion of cheating by the husband and the victim was retreating from her Islamic conversion.
|
|
|
|
This is from rhe other story I linked to: “A mum-of-four “forbidden” from seeing her family and friends was slaughtered by her husband before her body was dumped in woods, a court heard. Petite Sinead Wooding, who had converted to Islam, had gone back to wearing western clothing when she was brutally murdered in a knife and hammer attack.” Obviously, the prosecutor’s theory is that this was relevant. Yet Yorkshire doesn’t mention it. Why?
|
|
|
|
Ok, we get that the woman was wearing western clothes again, but where does it say that is the reason she was killed other than Breitbart or JihadWatch?
Please provide the missing link, Jim. Otherwise, it's just speculation on your part and your favorite websites.
|
|
|
|
If the Crown had said that she had started wearing blue dresses days before her murder it would only be because they thought it relevant. Here, it’s patently obvious that they’re drawing the inference that her return to western clothing was a factor at least in her death.
|
|
|
|
That's conjecture, barrister.
Show me the smoking gun or back off.
|
|
|
|
What a treat it is trying to reason with ostriches. Not really. Waste of time is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Re: I know. It’s embarrassing for you. But fair is fair
Yeah, Jim, whatever you say, like you are the final arbitrator on your bogus claim that you cannot directly prove as a fact.
|
|
|
|
Are you really a lawyer??
I didn't claim, falsely or otherwise that Breitbart lied about her wearing western clothing.
I said they'd made that the headline, implying that was the reason she was killed. Maybe it was a part of it, but clearly there are several other significant factors, and I believe the trial isn't over yet. So how can anyone say she was killed because of the western clothing?
Because it makes Muslims look bad (and if Muslims ARE bad, it's probably true eh?).
OK, here's what the Mirror says, your link: Sinead Wooding, who had converted to Islam, had gone back to wearing western clothing when she was brutally murdered
Notice the word 'when'. But Breitbart uses the word 'for', as in she was murdered for wearing western clothes.
That's a lie. She happened to have just switched back to wearing western clothes when she was murder. Only Breitbart says she was murdered FOR wearing western clothes.
If you can't the the difference, you need to get a different job!
|
|
|
|
But, Jim is a defense lawyer. And as such, his job is to fudge things a bit to inject a bit of doubt into the jury about his client's guilt.
What he says in court doesn't have to be completely true. In fact, it can be pure conjecture on his part. You know, make things a little blurry for the jurors.
I think this tactic is in his playbook for us here.
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 15:47:01
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
No mention of western clothes. And the report reads like a report of court proceedings.
By which you meant that if this had been part of the case the Yorkshire Evening News would have mentioned it. After all, the story is so thorough it reads like an official report. Hence Breitbart was making it up.
Be honest.
|
|
|
|
The story is in several newspapers and the BBC and so on. So far, I see only Breitbart saying she was killed FOR wearing western clothes. The are other factors and the trial isn't ended, so Breitbart is jumping to the conclusions it wants.
I did not suggest that if the clothing had been part of the case, the Post would have mentioned it. Naturally, none of the reports contain everything that came out in court. The bit that Breitbart is making up is that the woman was killed FOR wearing western clothes. She had reverted to wearing western clothes, but we can't say that's why she was killed. How can Breitbart?
|
|
|
|
You assumed that the clothing wasn’t mentioned. That’s why you emphasized your opinion that the article read like an official report (It didn’t but that’s another issue). Be honest.
|
|
|
|
You make things up! You added the word 'official'. I didn't use that. It read like it was taken directly from court because it's full of the prosecutor said this, then that and so on.
Show me any news source that says the woman was killed for wearing western clothes.
I've been honest all the way, but it seems you can't recognise that.
You be honest. Breitbart alone said she was killed for wearing western clothes didn't they? And they don't know that do they?
I'm done with this. No doubt you'll have a come back, but any impartial reader of this stupid exchange can see you're avoiding admitting Breitbart's bias and unreliability when it's patently obvious.
Goodnight.
|
|
|
|
'Now you're simply lying' and 'Bullshit'.
Jim, where's the rational and logical discussion here?
|
|
|
|
And I'd like to add that he has remained personally courteous to you while you've been personally rude to him.
Note in this final post he refers to the exchange as stupid. He doesn't call you stupid. Which you did to him. I dunno about Canada but over here you need to be careful who you call stupid - and nobody likes it from what I can see.
|
|
|
|
How do you explain his mentioning that the Yorkshire Evening News report was so thorough in his view but still no mention of her clothes?
|
|
|
|
I like Winnie the Pooh, I think he's a very wise bear but you know when he thinks maybe he could manage one more spoonful of honey I know he's not right about that.
No matter how much you admire the Breitbart site, that's one spoonful of honey too much - why can't you see he's made a prejudicial assumption in declaring the woman got murdered for changing back to Western clothes?
And I don't think it's particularly likely to be the motivation. It's his wife not some random stranger so unlikely to be a purely religious act.
It's possible it could be the last straw and suddenly visible - omg my wife is being disobedient must slaughter her with an axe. But seeing as he is having an affair, it seems less simple than that.
It doesn't say anything nice about him.
|
|
|
|
You are asking me to explain to you what 13 was thinking about the report in the Yorkshire newspaper? what sort of a question is that!
I've actually just reread his posts and it is as I said - he tells you himself. Why make me doubt myself, Jim?
If you can't remember read them again too - the bit where you accuse him of lying is out of the blue, over the top and has no basis in reality.
He doesn't stomp on your head like edrek might, he explains and gives an answer to you quite clearly.
Then you tell him to be honest.
good grief.
wouldn't mind an explanation from you, Jim.
|
|
|
|
I asked you to interpret his words. We do that all the time. In fact, that’s exactly what we’re otherwise doing with the words of the articles. 13 made a point of describing how the Yorkshire paper’s report read like a court report and never mentioned anything about her reverting to western clothes. I say that the only reasonable inference is that this supports the fact that he did accuse Breitbart of making it up.
He wrote:
If you read the Yorkshire Evening Post, there is more to the story. In fact, Islam might have nothing to do with it. Dope (psychosis?) in the attic, drinking, suspected extra-marital affair. No mention of western clothes. And the report reads like a report of court proceedings.
Modified by Jim at Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 13:53:55
|
|
|
|
You're making me look it up again. Here's another quote from 13 that should clear things up for you.
"I did not suggest that if the clothing had been part of the case, the Post would have mentioned it. Naturally, none of the reports contain everything that came out in court."
as far as the quote you want my input on - I understood his meaning from the first, I never thought he meant Breibart was making up the clothes thing at any point - this 'fact' of yours!  ! Goodness Jim, how does a misconception of yours, an honest misconception but one of them things nonetheless - how come that's now elevated to a fact!
your turn to read it through again - 13 has been clear - easy to understand and honest all the way through. That's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
What does “No mention of western clothes” mean to you?
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry Jim - you're the one that misunderstood what 13 was saying, not me. And I've answered you fully already. The cat sat on the mat - what does that mean to you Jim?
answer - literally it means the cat sat on the mat and practically it means Lesley thinks I've asked a silly question.
|
|
|
|
Reasoning with you has hit a bit of a wall. Not for the first time ....
Anyway, all will come clearer as the trial proceeds. The Crown will summarize that Sinead was killed because she was bristling at her husband's control. There were several issues -- her refusal to accept the name he wanted for the baby, him wanting to take the kid to Pakistan (?) but she couldn't go, her wanting to maintain relations with her family and, yes, wanting to wear western clothes again. Islam.
|
|
|
|
There are controlling men all over the world that behave exactly like that. There may be more muslim men like that, I don't know, but blaming Islam for controlling behaviour when it is fairly universal is absurd. This isn't to exonerate Islam, or to comment on the way muslim men treat women. It just reveals your knee jerk reaction laying all the ills of the world at the feet of mohammed and demonstrates the ease with which you allow your prejudice to overrule logic.
What a shame.
|
|
|
|
The fact that you feel compelled to resort to the false claim that I "lay all the ills of the world at the feet of Mohammed" shows that in fact it's you who isn't dealing with this logically. Islam did not invent misogyny. It didn't invent violence. It didn't invent murder. However, it's a significant factor in this case, not just in my view but the Crown's as well. You'll see. Stick around for closing arguments.
|
|
|
|
You’re dissembling. Your point was that Breitbart likely lied about the clothes. It didn’t.
|
|
|
|
Jim, again Breitbart is the only 'source' that said the woman was killed 'for' her western clothes. Other UK sources mentioned that she was wearing western clothing, but did not in any way say she was kill because of it.
The one source in the UK that 13 brings up didn't even mention clothing. If they didn't mention clothing then they must have completely missed the trial and the motive, right? Well, maybe they didn't mention the western clothing because it was not a factor in the trial.
Certainly, Breitbart has a special readership that they like to keep whipped up about the Muslim menace. Maybe that's why Breitbart used the word 'for' and made the whole killing about wearing western clothing.
I don't know, Jim. I thought you were a smart person.
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 19:00:54
|
|
|
|
Here’s how the Mirror put it:
Mr Campbell said the marriage had been under strain and Miss Wooding had started wearing Western clothes again in the days before her death.
Any fair-minded reasonable and honest person would immediately get that the only reason the crown said this was to suggest the connection. It’s that simple. I know. I do this for a living. I’ve sat through many an opening statement and the crown would never say this if it were irrelevant. Never. Not in a million years. Why? Because if it’s not the crown theory but they ambiguously suggest it may be they’re commiting an egregious mistake, floating the prospect of a motive that the defence can knock down. Their words are not uttered casually.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 23:02:53
|
|
|
|
You're the EXPERT!!!
hahahahahahahahahaha
too funny!
Did you say you're a comedian?
|
|
|
|
I’m an expert in that this is my field. I’m a criminal lawyer who defends a lot of murder cases. You’re not. I’ve heard and had to respond to many such opening statements. You haven’t. I know what I’m talking about on this. You don’t. When the crown said that she’d stopped wearing western clothes a few days before he was clearly suggesting a motive.
|
|
|
|
Gosh, Jim, your professional reputation is on the line now, so you had better be correct on your ASSUMPTION.
If you click the Google link below you will see a number of stories about the killing. Only one has this quote:
Mr Campbell said the marriage had been under strain and Miss Wooding had started wearing Western clothes again in the days before her death.
None of the others mention her clothing other than Breitbart. Some say that they had a row over her being forbidden to see friends and family. There were other serious problems going on in the relationship.
I say until we get better information you are jumping to the conclusion that she was killed for her western clothing because now more than ever you need that to be the case.
The trial is not over yet.
Google Sinead Wooding
|
|
|
|
Jim, this article from the Sun says the reason was because she disobeyed him by continuing to see her friends and family. This article does not mention western clothing at all.
A MUM was stabbed to death by her husband after she defied his demands to stop seeing her family and friends, a court heard.
And Campbell is 'quoted' with this:
Mr Campbell said it was a "volatile" and sometimes violent relationship
and Miss Wooding had continued to visit a female friend and her family
after she had been "forbidden" from visiting them.
Sinead Wooding ‘murdered by husband after she defied his demands to stop seeing her family and friends’
|
|
|
|
It was what Breitbart said, cos Breitbart is the only news outlet with the real low-down on Muslims. Whatever the other news sources say, she was killed by a muslim upset at his wife wearing western clothes. Probably the other news source are scared to say it in case they get labelled racist, islamophobic or whatever. I bet even the judge will be scared to mention it in his summing up. See what's wrong with this country Mr Drek? Aren't we doomed? Breitbart, JihadWatch and Jim know.
|
|
|
