Zarqawi killed in Iraq air raid

[Steph Cowley]

fourthlinecentre said:

admin said:

Why shouldn't it be?
I'm not necessarily agreeing with JP's opinion, but as you say, he has a right to his opinion. He also has the right to post his opinion on this forum. You also have the right to post your opinion on this forum, and you have done.
Just because you don't agree with JP's opinion doesn't mean he should lose his right to post it on the forum. If you think it does, then you and every other member should also lose the right to post their opinions.
By all means say you don't agree with it if you don't, but don't suggest that his rights should be taken away just because you don't agree with him.

Where did I say that his right should be taken away? I haven't said at any point that I had a problem with his right to post it-just that I found what he was posting somewhat distasteful

Yes you have, you said you would appreciate if his view wasn't so public. I see that as you saying you would appreciate if his view wasn't posted.

and that links to the pictures of the corpse were not posted-if people want to look at them, they'll find them-but most people take no pleasure in looking at a corpse, even that of a terrorist.

To put it another way-does posting links to a picture of a corpse (which is universally agreed to be adult material) IRRESPECTIVE of the identity, contravene forum rules, or does it not-or is it only to be applied when the corpse is not that of someone people generally agree is not a hugely great loss to the world?

It does break the current rule, you are right, but staff members are currently discussing a change in the rule which would allow websites like this to be posted as long as a warning was posted along with the link. We wanted to see what sort of response this got though before we changed the rule.

And you know as well as I do that, given a link to a site like ogrish, most people are not just going to click on the one thing

Well that's up to the individual.

Or, by the same defence (i.e it's in the public domain) am I now allowed to post a link to the famous picture of a Vietnamese being shot in the head (google it if you don't know what I mean)?

If you wanted to, and if you posted an adequate warning along with link, and no members complained, then yes we would probably allow it.


Can you not just accept that JP has his opinion and is allowed to post it, no matter how distasteful you think it might be and how much you might disagree with it.

[PW]

But has the point that members HAVE complained about this not said something-irrespective of who they are?

As for the warning...you know as well as I do that that won't stop people clicking on it, underage or not.

[Steph Cowley]

fourthlinecentre said:

But has the point that members HAVE complained about this not said something-irrespective of who they are?

Yes it has, which is why the link was deleted.

fourthlinecentre said:

As for the warning...you know as well as I do that that won't stop people clicking on it, underage or not.

The warning isn't necessarily to stop them, it's to warn members that content on the linked site shouldn't be viewed by anyone under 18.

I don't see why you are complaining so much now. Links to websites containing adult material have been posted before (all with warnings) but you never complained then (which is why they were left, because no one complained.)

Anyway, enough of this, the link was posted, members complained, and it was deleted, no harm done.

JP has an opinion, he is entitled to post it, just as you are.

Now back on topic please.
and if you really feel the need to carry this debate on then you can PM me.

[Blazing Kate]

Everyone has a right to an opinion.

To be fair though, yes his death cost that of another 5, but if he had stayed alive for another 2 years, you don't know how many lives he would have stolen. It's not nice that innocent people died, but then again, many innocent people die each day. In car crashes, in shootings, in wars. Its an act of life. I don't know a huge amount on what he's done etc, but I know he's a evil man who, in my opinion, doesn't deserve the privilege of life, if he's going to take others.

[Claret & Blue Army]

Not sure if the argument is about the death or the way of death of this human being. Didn't we have a similar thing last autumn when a majority on here weren't sorry that George Best had died citing his own self destruction as being his own fault?

I'll phrase it thus...I'm happy he can no longer carry out terrorist activities.....Zarqawi that is and not Best

[PW]

It's about neither. It's the public "we killed the SOB" attitude, and the posting of a link to adult material in the direct contravention of forum rules, that's the problem.

I'd also like to know what's implied by the "we all know why you and Ali are doing this" comment...

[Claret & Blue Army]

Any links should be thoroughly vetted in future to make sure they don't contain any adult material or material of poor taste.

To be perfectly honest I couldn't give a monkeys that Zarqawi is no more but as a Republican I wasn't overly bothered when Diana Spencer died either other than as an individual who was no more.

[covunistudent]

Hmmm well thats got rid of one problem, but that doesn't mean anything will change overnight in Iraq (fairly obvious comment there.)

[Canary]

blazingkate said:

.....but I know he's a evil man who, in my opinion, doesn't deserve the privilege of life, if he's going to take others.

Yes but who has the right to take his life?

He was an evil man but I certainly don't feel 'glad' that he's dead..... Just honestly think it's a shame that people have had to resort to killing people to be able to control them.

Anyway isn't there that belief of become a martyr or something in death. Would have been better to see a guy like him caught and locked away.

Oh yeah....also thought the link to the pictures last night was distasteful. Don't see the need for links of things that are easily accessible.

[SuperMouse]

I don't think that ANY links to adult material should be posted, regardless of warnings or not because Children and young people do post on this forum and I would think that if the parents of these people knew about the adult material on the site they would ban them from looking at it and the forum would lose quite a lot of its members.

Also, on Topic, yeah, a man is dead, some one killed him.... doesn't that make the person/s who killed him no better then he was.

And John, childish comments don't help to get your point across.

[Steph Cowley]

Please, no more posts from anyone saying how you think posting the link was distasteful, inapropriate etc, we understood that some members didn't like it as soon as it was posted, so it was deleted. You've made your point, no need to keep repeating it.

[Rich]

Lets All Have A Disco.

[davetheblaze]

First post in a long time but what constitutes an adult link, I would have thought pictures which are shown on main news websites are ok, saying that I didnt see what the exact link was. Its just to me the term 'adult content' generally means porn when talking about websites.

Personally I have no problems with pictures of war as I think a lot of the time wars are glossed over to make it more palatable to the general public.

During the first Gulf War there were no footage of people actually being killed, it was all smart bombs going down chimneys. This was deliberate as a lot of people would turn against the war if the violence was shown.