Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The first thing that strikes anyone without skin in the game of this conflict, is how easy it is to solve. The essential point is a simple one. Two peoples of roughly equal size have a claim to the same land. The solution is, obviously, to create two states side by side. However, those who do have a tendentious, non-objective point of view, namely the rabid rabbis and the mad mullahs and the pervervid priests, have served to scupper any chances of solution, obvious to everyone else. But the exclusive claims to god-given authority, made by hysterical clerics on both sides and further stoked by Armageddon-minded wacko Christians who hope to bring on the Apocalypse tout de suite (preceded by the death or conversion of all Jews), have made the situation insufferable, literally and metaphorically, and put the whole of humanity in the position of hostage to a squabble that now features the threat of nuclear conflagration. The moral of this sad, sorry tale, full of sound and fury, is that organised religion has so much to answer for, we may be here until the seas run dry and rocks melt in the hot middle-eastern sun, before it can claim any kind of alibi.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
This is heartbreaking. Hope Odesa doesn’t get completely mashed. One of the tragedies of war, aside from the obvious human cost, is the loss of beautiful old cities and towns, which once gone, are never to return and are invariably replaced with horrendous modern architectural monstrosities (eg. Marseille, Le Havre, Hamburg, Portsmouth, Rotterdam, Berlin, etc.). Odesa is one of Ukraine’s gems. Please let the war gods spare it.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Given Rochdale is 36% Muslim, it was inevitable Galloway would win. The real issue here is Islam. Galloway is a friend to Islam. 3:24 Look at the people surrounding him here. If you’re not a friend to Islam, and you make it public, this can cause you trouble. If I were a famous public figure and publicly slagged off Jesus, or Yaweh, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly castigated Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie. For some reason, certain prevalent strands of Islam can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
What’s happening in France can be correlated with Brexit and Trump. Instead of looking at this in terms of traditional left versus right, David Goodheart’s thesis of two distinct ‘tribes’, the ‘anywheres’ and the ‘somewheres’, with irreconcilable differences may be applicable here. Brexiteers, Trumpeteers and Le Penistas fall into the ‘somewhere’ camp and they may be seen as rooted in geographical identity - the Scottish farmer; working-class Geordie; Cornish housewife - who find rapid changes to the modern world unsettling; are socially conservative; are likely to be older and less well educated and less mobile. This manifests in supporting anti-mass-immigration policies; strong support for the Armed Forces; suspicion of the EU, and more widely ‘other’ cultures; strong support for strict law enforcement (including the death penalty) and a general authoritarianism, with the notion that the primary job of Britain’s leaders is to put British interests first. ‘Anywheres’ are footloose; often urban; university educated; socially liberal; egalitarian and meritocratic in their attitudes to race, sexuality, and gender; are able to migrate and integrate comfortably into other places; are often strong supporters of the EU and globalisation; are lighter in their attachments to larger group identities, including national ones, valuing autonomy and self-realisation before stability, community and tradition. What’s happening in France may be seen as a battle between the Anywheres and the Somewheres just as Brexit and Trump’s election may be seen in these terms.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
This episode goes right to the heart of free-speech and its limits. Personally, as a free-speech absolutist, I have no issue with what Clarkson said but recognise law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious. Clarkson’s words are clearly an incitement to violence on another, notwithstanding the jokey, blokey Clarkson tone cloaking those words. The fact Clarkson himself appears to think he crossed a line suggests he probably did. However, when all is said and done here, as usual George Orwell hit the nail on the head when he said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13