Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #76
    Thailand Expat
    billy the kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    19-11-2016 @ 07:57 PM
    Posts
    7,636
    seems not one person in London knows this Jihadi John.

  2. #77
    Thailand Expat
    zygote1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    20-05-2015 @ 10:43 AM
    Location
    Hua Hin
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zygote1 View Post
    Those who argue for full access to the recording of Foley's murder are unable to provide a coherent reason upon which the recording should be disseminated. They are oblivious to facts such as;
    1. It was a criminal act.
    2. The recording of the murder violated Foley's right to privacy and his fundamental human rights.
    3. The use of illegal/ criminally obtained materials is in itself a crime.

    Apparently, respect for an individual's right to privacy and to prevent further harm to the victim's family and to society as a whole by disseminating such a disgusting recording must be pushed aside because some sickos need to get their jollies by watching the last minutes of someone's life.
    1. Which specific law was broken?
    2. What proof do you have that Foley wanted the video kept private?
    3. The owners of the video disseminated it, therefore (presumably) they are happy for people to see it, so how is watching that video on Youtube or Liveleaks illegal? And in which jurisdictions do you base your claims on?


    .
    Are you serious?
    1. There were multiple laws broken, the primary being that this was an extortion and murder. Extortion as demonstrated by the ransom demand, and murder because of the beheading.
    2. Clutching at straws are you? In order to have had the recording legally distributed here are just 2 of several conditions that had to be met;
    i) There must have been an express agreement by the parties, i.e. Foley must have said yes, please distribute the images of my beheading. Do you honestly think he would have agreed?
    ii) In the absence of Foley's consent, his legal heirs, i.e. estate must agree. (Do you honestly think his mum wants the beheading circulating?)
    3. You claim the "owners" distributed it and that it therefore makes it alright. You are aware that it is illegal to profit or otherwise benefit from illegal activity. The dissemination of propaganda is in effect a benefit to the murderers' political campaign. When someone walks into a cinema and records a film and then posts it online, it is considered a theft. In this case, the beheading was an illegal act unless you want to now argue that it was a consensual act. More specifically, the distributors of the recording are engaged in the distribution of property that is deemed contraband. It is akin to trading in stolen goods. The fact remains that Foley did not consent to his beheading nor the distribution of the recording, His right to privacy was violated. The onus to show consent is on the distributors of the recording.

    There is no legal basis upon which the recording can be publicly disseminated. You are unable to provide any justification in law that allows it to do be distributed. The servers for companies like Liveleak and others are located in jurisdictions which have laws governing the distribution of illegally obtained materials.
    Kindness is spaying and neutering one's companion animals.

  3. #78
    Thailand Expat
    The Ghost Of The Moog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    26-08-2017 @ 09:53 PM
    Posts
    5,626
    Quote Originally Posted by zygote1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thaimeme View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thaimeme
    ....we've become spoiled.
    Half-assed is unexceptable.
    except when it's acceptable
    Acceptance that is forced upon and conditioned into.
    Those who argue for full access to the recording of Foley's murder are unable to provide a coherent reason upon which the recording should be disseminated. They are oblivious to facts such as;
    1. It was a criminal act.
    2. The recording of the murder violated Foley's right to privacy and his fundamental human rights.
    3. The use of illegal/ criminally obtained materials is in itself a crime.

    Apparently, respect for an individual's right to privacy and to prevent further harm to the victim's family and to society as a whole by disseminating such a disgusting recording must be pushed aside because some sickos need to get their jollies by watching the last minutes of someone's life.
    Lots of legal-sounding imperatives and talk about indeterminate 'rights' in this post, but I can't detect anything that is actually legally rigorous.

  4. #79
    Thailand Expat
    wasabi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Online
    28-10-2019 @ 03:54 AM
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10,940
    Spanish Civil war, Brits went over to fight Facism, and last year the BBC treated them as hero's.
    Today These young brave men from London are fighting for a noble cause, just like other volunteer warriors from times past.
    They are fighting fascists.
    Well done the new " Beatles "

  5. #80
    Thailand Expat
    The Ghost Of The Moog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    26-08-2017 @ 09:53 PM
    Posts
    5,626
    Quote Originally Posted by zygote1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zygote1 View Post
    Those who argue for full access to the recording of Foley's murder are unable to provide a coherent reason upon which the recording should be disseminated. They are oblivious to facts such as;
    1. It was a criminal act.
    2. The recording of the murder violated Foley's right to privacy and his fundamental human rights.
    3. The use of illegal/ criminally obtained materials is in itself a crime.

    Apparently, respect for an individual's right to privacy and to prevent further harm to the victim's family and to society as a whole by disseminating such a disgusting recording must be pushed aside because some sickos need to get their jollies by watching the last minutes of someone's life.
    1. Which specific law was broken?
    2. What proof do you have that Foley wanted the video kept private?
    3. The owners of the video disseminated it, therefore (presumably) they are happy for people to see it, so how is watching that video on Youtube or Liveleaks illegal? And in which jurisdictions do you base your claims on?


    .
    Are you serious?
    1. There were multiple laws broken, the primary being that this was an extortion and murder. Extortion as demonstrated by the ransom demand, and murder because of the beheading.
    2. Clutching at straws are you? In order to have had the recording legally distributed here are just 2 of several conditions that had to be met;
    i) There must have been an express agreement by the parties, i.e. Foley must have said yes, please distribute the images of my beheading. Do you honestly think he would have agreed?
    ii) In the absence of Foley's consent, his legal heirs, i.e. estate must agree. (Do you honestly think his mum wants the beheading circulating?)
    3. You claim the "owners" distributed it and that it therefore makes it alright. You are aware that it is illegal to profit or otherwise benefit from illegal activity. The dissemination of propaganda is in effect a benefit to the murderers' political campaign. When someone walks into a cinema and records a film and then posts it online, it is considered a theft. In this case, the beheading was an illegal act unless you want to now argue that it was a consensual act. More specifically, the distributors of the recording are engaged in the distribution of property that is deemed contraband. It is akin to trading in stolen goods. The fact remains that Foley did not consent to his beheading nor the distribution of the recording, His right to privacy was violated. The onus to show consent is on the distributors of the recording.

    There is no legal basis upon which the recording can be publicly disseminated. You are unable to provide any justification in law that allows it to do be distributed. The servers for companies like Liveleak and others are located in jurisdictions which have laws governing the distribution of illegally obtained materials.
    You don't know what media law is in Syria/Iraq (and your concepts about media law pertaining to deceased parties in other countries is also very erroneous) , so basically, you're making up this pretty speech to dovetail with whatever point it is you're trying to make.

    Better that you really try to stop banging this drum (but of course you won't)

  6. #81
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,022
    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    Spanish Civil war, Brits went over to fight Facism, and last year the BBC treated them as hero's.
    Today These young brave men from London are fighting for a noble cause, just like other volunteer warriors from times past.
    They are fighting fascists.
    Well done the new " Beatles "
    Noble cause - the Brits just needed a cheap new holiday spot.
    The Canaries weren't an option anymore.

  7. #82
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,218
    ^^ As some nonentity once said "your either with us or against us". If the POTUS announces a new diktat it immediately becomes Global Law. If not kowtowing you are labelled as terrorists and are fair game for a bombing or financial wreaking campaign.

  8. #83
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,022
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    ^^ As some nonentity once said "your either with us or against us". If the POTUS announces a new diktat it immediately becomes Global Law. If not kowtowing you are labelled as terrorists and are fair game for a bombing or financial wreaking campaign.
    Usually with a heading of: keeping the world free for democracy.

  9. #84
    . Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    21,210
    Quote Originally Posted by zygote1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    ^ You still haven't provided any proof that Foley wanted the video kept private. You don't have any.
    That's your remaining argument?
    No. It's pointing out that you have not provided any proof of your claim.

    One more you have not answered satisfactorily is "Which specific law was broken?" Let me help you find your answer. In which jurisdiction do you base your claims on? Syria/Syrian law? Iraq/Iraqi law? And which specific law was broken? For example (only): Penal Code 187 (a) PC in California, USA.

  10. #85
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    19-06-2023 @ 09:10 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    5,734
    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post

    Well done the new " Beatles "
    You are congratulating the new Beatles ?
    You are congratulating the guys who beheaded that Journalist .
    If you wish to congratulate him personally, then you had better do it very quickly, because his days are numbered .

  11. #86
    Thailand Expat
    Pound Hound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    26-03-2016 @ 09:24 AM
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    1,001
    "If you don't want to get beheaded stay the fuck in Oklahoma! I don't think they are beheading people in Oklahoma anyway" - George Carlin

    I don't condone these people's actions.... but Christ Almighty you can't tell me this guy did not know he was in a dangerous business... he knew the risks... AND he probably got paid very well for those risks!

    stay the fuck in Oklahoma....


    This is a great message board.... For me to poop on!

  12. #87
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,054
    i read today (sorry can't remember where) that the US was considering this guy's beheading to be an act of terrorism against the US....which clearly is a stretch.

    is that how they're going to justify dropping bombs in syria?

  13. #88
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,218
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey
    is that how they're going to justify dropping bombs in syria?
    Justify massacring people . When has the US/NATO ever justified their hammering of every virtual nail in the world.

  14. #89
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,022
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey
    is that how they're going to justify dropping bombs in syria?
    Justify massacring people . When has the US/NATO ever justified their hammering of every virtual nail in the world.
    When you create/manufacture/fabricate most of the troubles worldwide, any justifications become moot.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •