MISREPRESENTED CONTEXT

1. I am indeed disgusted with attempts to misrepresent and take out of context what I wrote on my blog yesterday.

2. Those who did that highlighted only one part of paragraph 12 which read: “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
3. They stopped there and implied that I am promoting the massacre of the French.
4.If they had read d posting in its entirety & especially the subsequent sentence which read: “But by & large the Muslims hv not applied the “eye for an eye” law. Muslims don’t. The French shouldn’t. Instead the French should teach their people to respect other people’s feelings
5. Because of the spin and out of context presentation by those that picked up my posting, reports were made against me and I am accused of promoting violence etc… on Facebook and Twitter.
6. FB and Twitter had then requested the administrators of my Facebook and Twitter accounts to remove the postings. Despite attempts to explain the context of the posting, they were removed.
7. There is nothing I can do with FB and Twitter’s decision to remove my posting. To my mind, since they are the purveyor of freedom of speech, they must at least allow me to explain and defend my position.
8. But that is what freedom of speech is to them. On the one hand, they defended those who chose to display offending caricatures of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. and expect all Muslims to swallow it in the name of freedom of speech and expression.
On the other, they deleted deliberately that Muslims had never sought revenge for the injustice against them in the past.
9. Even my appeal that the French should explain the need to advise their people to be sensitive and respect the beliefs of other people is left out.
10. What is promoted by these reaction to my article is to stir French hatred for Muslims.

https://t.co/qrMVs45jbf

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...

You May Also Like

This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)