Media reports

[Bombay]

Me neither, were there 500-700+ armed and firing at the police in Cairo?

I have no idea and I understand the figure is for all Egypt where many clashes were between supporters and non supporters.

[Zooropa]

Oh well, im sure we can all agree its all very tragic.

[Bombay]

phpBB [video]

[Brian Yare]

If you can't be bothered to describe what is in the link I cannot be bothered to click on it.

[Bombay]

If you can't be bothered to describe what is in the link I cannot be bothered to click on it.

Upto you

[timetraveller]

There is a right to peaceful protest. But the pro-Morsi protesters were not peaceful, just maintaining a pretence of being so. They had guns and weapons and were using them. There is ample video footage to support this. The MB who have apparently 'renounced violence' are now wreaking havoc in Alexandria and Sinai and attacking Copts and their Churches and property countrywide. Shia's have also been attacked and even their fellow Sunni's who are anti-Morsi dismissed as 'infidels'. And the murders of the Police have been simply barbaric.

They were given ample time to 'peacefully' protest. Six weeks! And they were causing inconvenience and disruption to the local population. Very few countries democratic or otherwise would allow their capital to be thus compromised indefinately. However strongly the Turkish Islamist leader Erdogan condemns the 'massacre' he forgets that he was severe enough with the protesters in Taksim Square a few months ago! They were tear-gassed and water-cannoned. If the Turkish forces stopped short of shooting protesters I imagine that it was simply because it did not prove necessary. And the protestors against Fracking in England? Peaceful, yes. But dispersed nevertheless.

Moreover the protesters were given ample warning of the dispersal and they were told in no uncertain terms that violent resistance would be met with force. They did not need to die. They were free to leave and the vast majority did just that. But the hardline extremists insisted that they were ready to give their lives as Martyrs for Morsi. They were equally prepared to put forward innocent children for Martyrdom! Well, now some of them have got their wish!

A death toll or approximately 500 is not negligable and it is of course regrettable. But considering the number of protesters there were- hundreds of thousands maybe? it is much lower than might be imagined. And I wouldn't mind betting that the police weren't responsible for all of those fatalities either!

Wow, they were allowed to protest for six weeks, the right to free speech is not time limited!

Hundreds of people were murdered on the streets and any comparison with disputes in the UK have no merit whatsoever.

TO defend or justify it is to defend and justify murder.

I cant bring myself to comment on the final paragraph of your post.

Wow.

Well, Zooropa, nobody else seems to have been rendered speechless by my post, even the last paragraph. In fact five other posters have seen fit to press the 'like' button. But as there is no 'dislike' button I will offer everybody to voice their objection now. If anybody else would like to express their offence at this post please do so and I will be happy to address your concerns. However, I don't think I will bother to do this with you Zooropa. I've had enough of your name calling for one lifetime!

Just one point however. I don't 'justify' murder as a rule and in the concluding paragraph that you can't bring yourself to comment on I do in fact term the deaths as 'regrettable'. But the situation is somewhat complicated is it not when those killed by the military are members of an organisation that freely advocates and engages in the murder of anybody it regards as an 'enemy'?

You will recall no doubt the two teenage boys who were abducted and thrown from a rooftop in Sinai for chanting 'Morsi's gone'. When one of them didn't die from the fall he was battered to death. And also the rocket propelled grenade that was launched into a bus full of workers, killing them all? The numerous Christians who have been murdered in the attempt to defend their lives, their homes, Churches and property? The two Shiite holymen who were murdered, stripped and their corpses dragged through the streets? The Police Officers murdered, stripped and mutilated in their Police Stations? Don't their lives count for anything? Just a few examples among many. Is anybody keeping a tally of how many have died at the hands of the protestors?

And now, after the dispersal the MB are truly going berserk and attacking buildings and installations all over the country. And yes, they are using firearms. And yes, the forces are returning fire. Live by the sword, die by the sword?

[Zooropa]

Its not a popularity contest and I was not offended just aghast.

Even if I was offended, that's something I would have to deal with as no one has the right to not be offended.

Its not about objecting, im not asking or suggesting your post be removed.

I didn't call you any names I just expressed an opinion, you can have a thousand likes if you want.

Instead of complaining that I don't agree with you just stick to the debate.

You have an opinion and so do I, lets be grown up and just allow each other a say.

If you want to condone murder, then again, its your view and right to have it, as it is mine to disagree.

Its all about opinions, don't waste your time justifying your right to express it to me, you don't have to.

Neither do you have to check if I or anyone else was offended, in most debates causing offence is allowed, breaking forum/discussion rules is not.

[Brian Yare]

If you can't be bothered to describe what is in the link I cannot be bothered to click on it.

Upto you

I see that someone has now inserted an appropriate link.

[timetraveller]

Zooropa, I cannot respond to all of your post as frankly some of it is nonsensical. For instance....'Even if I was offended that's something I would have to deal with as no-one has the right to not be offended.' What kind of distorted logic is that? So all the time that I spend on here reading posts that don't offend me in the slightest I am acting outside of my 'rights'?
Interesting. Guess there's nothing wrong with me being offended by your posts then by that rationale?

So, you were not 'offended' just 'aghast'. Oh well, that makes all the difference then!

And I'm not complaining that you don't agree with me. I couldn't care less about that. And I HAVE continued with the debate. I have given you examples of the murders the MB have committed. Where's your continuation? Where is your argument in response to that?

And the name calling? Not on this thread (yet) but very recently. 'Selfish and arrogant' ring any bells?

And as for condoning murder? Well generally I don't. Especially not the murder of innocents. But the 'murder' of murderers? The shooting of protesters who are engaged in violent attacks and have been given ample opportunity to withdraw? Well I guess I'm a bit more ambivalent about that. And I suspect I am not alone.

And as for your suggestion that we both 'grow up'. I think I've grown up as much as I want to thanks all the same. But as for you? By all means take your own advice!

And now you are accusing me of breaking forum rules!. I am not aware of having done so. But if I have it is surely down to Keefy or one of the moderators to advise me of this. Not you!

[Zooropa]

Please refer to the answer ive given on the ex pat thread about the previous debate, that's over, it still up so forum rules were not broken and I don't need to justify them now or ever.

It may be distorted logic to you but I see no reason to amend what I said, "no one has the right not to be offended"

Its a common talking point and not my problem if you don't understand it or have never come across it before.

I want to be free to comment on threads without you constantly bringing up our previous debate.

Its not fair on other posters.

Please move on.

What? I have not accused you of breaking forum rules, what are you talking about.

I SAID MY COMMENTS ARE STILL ON THE SITE SO THE THREAD BROKE NO RULES!

Stop misquoting.

[timetraveller]

No you are quite right Zooropa. I can honestly say that I have never come across the assertion that 'no one has the right NOT to be offended' before! Guess we'll all have to go around pretending to take umbrage then!

And what's all this pre-occuptation with forum rules? I have not accused you of breaking forum rules. But I did take the statement 'in most debates causing offence is allowed, breaking forum/discussion rules is not' as an inference that I was doing so. Because that's how it reads!!!

And let me get this straight...unless you break forum rules you do not have to justify anything you say 'now or ever'? Blimey! And you've got the cheek to call me 'arrogant'!

Mind if I assume the same privilege?

[LivinginLuxor]

Strange how you two have moved your petty arguments to another thread! I have no problem with being offended by posts here; I can reply to them. Nor do I have any problem in giving offence; others can reply to my comments. But it is the individual's psychological makeup which makes something offensive. Not the comment itself, but it's interpretation!

[LivinginLuxor]

Strange how you two have moved your petty arguments to another thread! I have no problem with being offended by posts here; I can reply to them. Nor do I have any problem in giving offence; others can reply to my comments. But it is the individual's psychological makeup which makes something offensive. Not the comment itself, but it's interpretation!

[Who2]

On a more 'Happy note: in the last half hour during Question Time we had a new baby jamosa arrive....

[timetraveller]

Strange how you two have moved your petty arguments to another thread! I have no problem with being offended by posts here; I can reply to them. Nor do I have any problem in giving offence; others can reply to my comments. But it is the individual's psychological makeup which makes something offensive. Not the comment itself, but it's interpretation!

Oh Good. That's grand. So I can feel free to make whatever nasty, offensive and personal comments I like about you can I Stan? And should you express any objection I can just remind you that the remarks were only seen as offensive by you because of your 'psychological makeup' and the way you've 'interpreted' my words. You've just made my day!

Presumably, by your standards, we can all be as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, Christianaphobic or whatever as we like now. And if anybody finds any of it 'offensive' in any way, well we can just put it back on them and blame their 'psychological makeup' and 'interpretation'.

And considering the current events let's test your theory with a couple of topical examples:-

Several anti-Morsi Muslims of my acquaintance are very offended at being termed 'infidels' by the Islamists on the other side of the political divide. Especially those that are quite devout (my husband included). Should I tell him, and the others that they have no cause to be offended, and the fact that they are is all down to their 'psychological makeup' or 'interpretation'. How do you imagine this would be received?

Just after Morsi was deposed there was a video circulating of a female MB protester, in full Niqab,or naqib, whatever it is spouting the most hateful, vile insults and threats to the Christians culminating in her screaming ' Christians, we will burn you! We will set you on fire!' Now, bearing in mind that these were just words, (at the time-now enacted of course) would the Christians be entitled to be offended? Or would any offence taken just be down to their 'psychological makeup' or 'interpretation' of the woman's words?

I know what I think. I think that people are entitled to be offended by remarks that disparage their character, behaviour or any other of their personal characteristics if they feel that these remarks are unfounded or unjust. And I think they have a right to challenge such comments. And you'll have to come up with something much more convincing than your 'psychological makeup' argument to persuade me otherwise!

[Dusak]

There's an awful lot of bitch slapping today folks.

[timetraveller]

Maybe Dusak. But what exactly is 'bitch slapping?' Do only women do it in your exalted opinion?

[LovelyLadyLux]

I agree generally with what Stan says in that comments on a social media site OR comments that are written without the benefit of tonal inflection, body language, facial composure can be interpreted numerous ways. I'm also agreeing with Dusak today in that the bitch slappin' is getting to be less than petty bitchin'!

[timetraveller]

I agree generally with what Stan says in that comments on a social media site OR comments that are written without the benefit of tonal inflection, body language, facial composure can be interpreted numerous ways. I'm also agreeing with Dusak today in that the bitch slappin' is getting to be less than petty bitchin'!

So how many ways are there to interpret words like 'selfish', 'arrogant' 'inconsiderate', 'petty' and 'stupid'? How much 'tonal inflection, body language, facial composure' do you think is required to make their meaning clear? In your opinion?

You may be happy to allow people to make such slur's on your character LLL but I am not. I feel the need to challenge them. If Dusak and yourself choose to dismiss this as 'bitch slappin' or 'petty bitching' then so be it. A thick hide is required to survive this forum and I've got one. If people persist in levelling personal insults at me I can continue (if I so choose) to bat that back to them. Although, I admit that when people are completely intractable and think they have some inviolable right to insult their fellow posters in the name of 'debate' it is a bit pointless.

It is boring for other people I know. And I've apologised for that. But then, a simple apology or acknowledgement would have ended this nastiness at source. It wasn't forthcoming. Zooropa has made it clear that he doesn't give a damn if I was offended and denies that I have any right to be.I disagree, so obviously we are at an impasse.

And you've both had your squabbles on here haven't you? And Dusak's have rumbled on for a while I think. So have numerous other posters had their prolonged 'debates'. And as for Stan? Well there was a time, not so long ago when he took offence at just about everything wasn't there? Leaving people scratching their heads as to why, half the time! If I'm not interested in other people's arguments I just ignore them. All computers have a 'scroll down' facility don't they? If you don't like this one, don't read it. But please don't try to deny me my right to defend myself.

[LivinginLuxor]

"But please don't try to deny me my right to defend myself."

Your last statement agrees totally with my view that if I feel offended, I can always reply!

The terms you object to like selfish, arrogant etc are just someone's interpretation of what you have written. They are not in any way like "Burn the Christians" and the examples you quote, which are not open to interpretation in any way, and are exhortations to violence - they are beyond offensive.