[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

But its different if its Muslims. In a Charlie Hebdo thread you clearly lost your rag when Muslims said they were offended by some of the images that depicted Muhammad.

You said "Well fortunately Europe is not Saudi Arabia and artistic freedom is(sopposedly) one of the things which seperates us from these oppressive regimes. Just because Muslims don't want it printed does'nt mean it should not be. They can feck off to a nice Islamic dictatorship if they can't handle it."

These two subjects have absolutely NOTHING in common and are incomparable in the context of what you are trying to imply Red.

Devout or Extreme or Fundamentalist Muslims can be understood when they object to cartoons which depict their God (though the reaction of the murdering nutjobs in Paris can NEVER be justified) but in Paul's quoted post, we are talking about CORBYN - a possible FUTURE Prime Minister of this country - SUPPORTING and ENCOURAGING a VILE ANTI-SEMITIC when ALL the time Corbyn has denied being anti-Semitic.

The fact that Paul's post illustrates only one FURTHER example of cowardly Corbyn's duplicity and not the ONLY example compounds his UNSUITABILITY to even be LEADER of THE LABOUR PARTY let alone Prime Minister.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

These two subjects have absolutely NOTHING in common and are incomparable in the context of what you are trying to imply Red.

Devout or Extreme or Fundamentalist Muslims can be understood when they object to cartoons which depict their God (though the reaction of the murdering nutjobs in Paris can NEVER be justified) but in Paul's quoted post, we are talking about CORBYN - a possible FUTURE Prime Minister of this country - SUPPORTING and ENCOURAGING a VILE ANTI-SEMITIC when ALL the time Corbyn has denied being anti-Semitic.

The fact that Paul's post illustrates only one FURTHER example of cowardly Corbyn's duplicity and not the ONLY example compounds his UNSUITABILITY to even be LEADER of THE LABOUR PARTY let alone Prime Minister.

I strongly disagree. Those depictions of a Muslim prophet offended perfectly innocent Muslim people and not just war mongering Jihadists. Its no different than satanizing Jesus and expecting devout Christians not to be offended.

I happen to agree with that graffiti picture being removed as I can see clearly why it could be offensive but you can't have one rule for one faith and another for a different faith. Well you can but its hypocritical.

Corbyn doesn't support anti-semitism. No doubt he's anti-Zionist but that's understandable.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

These two subjects have absolutely NOTHING in common and are incomparable in the context of what you are trying to imply Red.

Devout or Extreme or Fundamentalist Muslims can be understood when they object to cartoons which depict their God (though the reaction of the murdering nutjobs in Paris can NEVER be justified) but in Paul's quoted post, we are talking about CORBYN - a possible FUTURE Prime Minister of this country - SUPPORTING and ENCOURAGING a VILE ANTI-SEMITIC when ALL the time Corbyn has denied being anti-Semitic.

The fact that Paul's post illustrates only one FURTHER example of cowardly Corbyn's duplicity and not the ONLY example compounds his UNSUITABILITY to even be LEADER of THE LABOUR PARTY let alone Prime Minister.

You are aware he hadn't seen the mural prior to it's removal?
By the way did you notice the word scrawled across it prior to the removal?...

In the interest of art the artist thankfully recreated the piece in 2016, with slight changes to the appearance of the bankers.