Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38859531 The question is this, someone who has been trained by the uk military was able hide and build what police describe as a significant find of arms and explosives and is not muslim. Does that indicate that anyone is capable of being a terrorist? " Of course if he is guilty of terrorist offences then he should face the full force of the law just as Muslims who are guilty of terrorist offences should also face the full force of the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 .
.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38859531 The question is this, someone who has been trained by the uk military was able hide and build what police describe as a significant find of arms and explosives and is not muslim. Does that indicate that anyone is capable of being a terrorist? " Obviously !!! I don't think McGuinness and Adams were Muslim do you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As we know that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter then yes, everyone is capable of being a terrorist." My father went from prisoner of war to terrorist to political prisoner. Sometimes government will label you what you want. PoW had rights so they rebranded him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017" Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists." I would not call either McGuinness or Adams terrorists. I would say that they were gangsters who used an insurgency to legitimise the organised criminal enterprise that one of them led and the other acted as press officer and political front man for. I would also say that there were just as many gangsters on the other side of the divide and that both sides prayed on their own communities in the name of republicanism and unionism. As for the British armed forces the truth is troops don't make good policemen. They see things in terms of us and them and are trained to act with extreme violence when required. This resulted in cases where troops acted as if at war fighting an enemy rather than as police keeping the peace. No side was without fault, but the working class Catholic communities were most certainly the worst treated. They were prayed on by all sides. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists." . What a load of fucking shit!... You've obviously never lost any of your family to the IRA, or the UVF,UDA,PIRA,LVF,IRB.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? " It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists. I would not call either McGuinness or Adams terrorists. I would say that they were gangsters who used an insurgency to legitimise the organised criminal enterprise that one of them led and the other acted as press officer and political front man for. I would also say that there were just as many gangsters on the other side of the divide and that both sides prayed on their own communities in the name of republicanism and unionism. As for the British armed forces the truth is troops don't make good policemen. They see things in terms of us and them and are trained to act with extreme violence when required. This resulted in cases where troops acted as if at war fighting an enemy rather than as police keeping the peace. No side was without fault, but the working class Catholic communities were most certainly the worst treated. They were prayed on by all sides." . Adams entire family for generations were terrorists, he's just the last in a long line of fuckwits and the ONLY reason he and the IRA gave up was 911, that changed the entire business model | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists." Typical Irish hypocrisy. Iirsh Gaels conqueres the whole of Scotland and Mann, forcing the Irish language and disposing the native nobles. Ever wondered why Scotland is covered in Gaelic place names and wondered why Scots used to speak Gaelic? Scot was even the Latin word for Gael as a result. Yet when they go back home to Ulster, the Irish all of a sudden don't like it. Tough shit. You made your bed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. " Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists. Typical Irish hypocrisy. Iirsh Gaels conqueres the whole of Scotland and Mann, forcing the Irish language and disposing the native nobles. Ever wondered why Scotland is covered in Gaelic place names and wondered why Scots used to speak Gaelic? Scot was even the Latin word for Gael as a result. Yet when they go back home to Ulster, the Irish all of a sudden don't like it. Tough shit. You made your bed." Scots "used" to speak Gaelic? What about the ones that speak Gallic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists. Typical Irish hypocrisy. Iirsh Gaels conqueres the whole of Scotland and Mann, forcing the Irish language and disposing the native nobles. Ever wondered why Scotland is covered in Gaelic place names and wondered why Scots used to speak Gaelic? Scot was even the Latin word for Gael as a result. Yet when they go back home to Ulster, the Irish all of a sudden don't like it. Tough shit. You made your bed. Scots "used" to speak Gaelic? What about the ones that speak Gallic?" I mean as a national language. Not regional. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way?" To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way?" Well you can be disengenous if you like. The rates are similar for all months and years. Or are you expecting February's page to be filled with Catholic nuns? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way? To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence." OK. That's quite a broad definition, you know. I think you've basically managed to cover any government who has ever been to war..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way? Well you can be disengenous if you like. The rates are similar for all months and years. Or are you expecting February's page to be filled with Catholic nuns?" All months and years since when, exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way? To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. OK. That's quite a broad definition, you know. I think you've basically managed to cover any government who has ever been to war....." i was thinking the same.Violence for political gain is standard. State sponsored terrorism is global. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence." So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power." Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes he is a terrorist. If you look at the stats though, the odds of being a Muslim terrorists are exponentially higher. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 Over what time period? What's a terrorist anyway? It's stated that it was just the January of 2017. It lists the crimes. Various array, from stabbing Israelis for existing and bombing, murdering and maiming all over the world. I'm sure there was one lsraeli terror suspect that stabbed a Mizrahi because he thought he was an Arab. The guy survived thankfully. Oh, OK. You should have been more specific - Your answer should have read: "You are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim over the period 1st January 2017 - 31st January 2017" Whats a terrorist, by the way? To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. OK. That's quite a broad definition, you know. I think you've basically managed to cover any government who has ever been to war..... i was thinking the same.Violence for political gain is standard. State sponsored terrorism is global." Perhaps in some part of the World. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does." Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. " Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you." It was your definition, not mine. Oh, and did you decide when it was that you were more likely to be a terrorist if you are Muslim, or are we just going to ammend it to "2017"....? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you." Actually i think you would be freedom fighter for your territory and a terrorist to those outside .Standard practice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you. It was your definition, not mine. Oh, and did you decide when it was that you were more likely to be a terrorist if you are Muslim, or are we just going to ammend it to "2017"....?" My apologies to the Jihadists world wide. I apologise for watering down the definition of terror. They really shouldn't be placed with the likes of people who have less than 10 kills and in self defense. They are too hardcore for that. What an insult. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you. Actually i think you would be freedom fighter for your territory and a terrorist to those outside .Standard practice. " What if you're asked to help? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you. It was your definition, not mine. Oh, and did you decide when it was that you were more likely to be a terrorist if you are Muslim, or are we just going to ammend it to "2017"....? My apologies to the Jihadists world wide. I apologise for watering down the definition of terror. They really shouldn't be placed with the likes of people who have less than 10 kills and in self defense. They are too hardcore for that. What an insult. " So... you've insulted yourself with your own definition of terrorism? 
I asked you to define terrorism, you did so and I asked you about your definition.
Did you ever decide exactly when it was that you were more likley to be a terrorist if you were Muslim?
I await your answer with baited breath.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To me, a terrorist is someone who is purposely using violence for political or theological reasons. Other wise it's just violence. So you think every soldier, sailor, airman and woman as well as every member of every police force and every politician in the world is a terrorist. After all every one of them will use violence for political reasons (stopping political protests) on the instructions of those in power. Soldier do not commit violence for that end. You think that coppers arrest people in the name of Jesus? And yes if a politician uses terror for political some then they are a terrorist and a tyrant. We know them as Stalin and Pol Pot. Thankfully most don't have that power but the individual always does. Soldiers kill for governments. That is political violence, whether it's violence that you agree with or not. Maintaining the status quo/law and order throgh force is lso political, as it protects a political system. Whether you happen to favour that system or not is moot. So yes, all governments who have been to war using legitimate armies use political violence, as to all countries with a police force. Fine. By that definition everyone is a terrorist. There are many spheres of politics and some on the micro level. Some person invades your home, you attack them... As a result you have protected a territory via violence. You are now a terrorist. And no this is the an analogy for Palestine. I will use the term less liberally than you. Actually i think you would be freedom fighter for your territory and a terrorist to those outside .Standard practice. What if you're asked to help?" Help who the freedom fighters or the terrorists? Or those outside. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As we know that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter then yes, everyone is capable of being a terrorist." Viva la revoluccion 
I'm more into peaceful protest though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists." Bollocks !!! Yes they were !!! And so we're the U V F and Johnny Adair ! I live 5 mile from a place in Yorkshire where Mc Gee Shot an unarmed copper making a routine check ! Yes all sides did bad including British Soldiers but don't Re Write History !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists. I would not call either McGuinness or Adams terrorists. I would say that they were gangsters who used an insurgency to legitimise the organised criminal enterprise that one of them led and the other acted as press officer and political front man for. I would also say that there were just as many gangsters on the other side of the divide and that both sides prayed on their own communities in the name of republicanism and unionism. As for the British armed forces the truth is troops don't make good policemen. They see things in terms of us and them and are trained to act with extreme violence when required. This resulted in cases where troops acted as if at war fighting an enemy rather than as police keeping the peace. No side was without fault, but the working class Catholic communities were most certainly the worst treated. They were prayed on by all sides." The Voice of Reason ! Wish I could put things as good as you sometimes ! Fair Play  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make??" . Yeah you imbecile I'm from fucking Enniskillen.... It's British you and the IRB can fuck off as far as I'm concerned and live by the rule of law like every fucker else has to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists. Bollocks !!! Yes they were !!! And so we're the U V F and Johnny Adair ! I live 5 mile from a place in Yorkshire where Mc Gee Shot an unarmed copper making a routine check ! Yes all sides did bad including British Soldiers but don't Re Write History !!!" British soldiers? Can you imagine the job they had to do and what they were faced with? I know 2 who have since killed themselves because of the trauma | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So mcguinness and Adams are terrorists...youve some neck..the British military responsible for the slaughter of thousands of Irish on our own soil,a land you were never invited into nor welcome....its hilarious how ignorant and stupid some are to the British atrocities in this land and have the audacity to call our people terrorists. Bollocks !!! Yes they were !!! And so we're the U V F and Johnny Adair ! I live 5 mile from a place in Yorkshire where Mc Gee Shot an unarmed copper making a routine check ! Yes all sides did bad including British Soldiers but don't Re Write History !!! British soldiers? Can you imagine the job they had to do and what they were faced with? I know 2 who have since killed themselves because of the trauma" And, of course nobody from the other side was traumatised fighting their war against an imperial opressor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make??" Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"fighting their war against an imperial opressor. " Now that I find very hard to swallow. Let me point out a few simple facts to you. Firstly there is no empire and there has been no imperial oppression in Ireland since the Black and Tan war. What there has been is Irish Protestants (who conveniently forget that their Scottish ancestors were dispossessed of their homes and land in the highland clearances by English aristocrats who wanted to use the land as a playground and to raise sheep) passing oppressive and unjust laws to keep Catholic Irish in virtual servitude enforced by an armed Protestant Irish paramilitary force with police powers to legalise their thuggery (B Specials)! The military were sent in to NI in 1969 to protect the Irish Catholic population from the gangs of Irish Protestants that were burning them out of their homes and killing them with impunity. What happened after that was unfortunately inevitable. First the Irish Protestants thought that because the troops were in British uniform and the Protestants claimed to be loyalists the troops were on their side, so believed that troops would protect them when they attacked Catholics. A few dead Protestants later and the troops were hated by the Irish Protestants. Then some equally stupid Irish Catholics mistook troops shooting arsonists and gunmen for the military taking their side and thought they would get some payback. Of course the troops now started shooting Irish Catholic arsonists and gunmen resulting in the troops quickly finding that all the Irish population hated them. At that point the IRA emerged to protect the Catholic community and declared war on the British government, the UDA was formed by Protestant Irish in response and out of that grew the alphabet soup of organised crime gangs that preyed on their own communities in the name of either nationalism or unionism while their leaders became very wealthy on the proceeds of the drugs trade, prostitution and protection rackets they ran. And through all that you had British troops patrolling the streets watching this going on and being powerless to stop it. further because they were in uniform and not Irish that made them an easy target of insult, abuse and the perfect scapegoat for Irish anger at what the Irish were doing to one another. As I have said before troops do not make good police, it was inevitable that control would be lost at times. I am in no way trying to justify any of the wrongs done by any side. All I am trying to do is bring a little unbiased, unemotional perspective to what happened and maybe get one or two here to critically reassess their positions. I would like to make two final points. One: Attacks on the mainland were bound to happen because the British government did not really have the will to solve the NI problem while it was just Irish bombing and killing Irish in NI. Two: It is an open secret in the military that all sides in the troubles had 'volunteers' sign up and do the first 10/11 weeks of basic training before buying themselves out for £20 (cost in my day) in order to get proper military firearms training. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"fighting their war against an imperial opressor. Now that I find very hard to swallow. Let me point out a few simple facts to you. Firstly there is no empire and there has been no imperial oppression in Ireland since the Black and Tan war. What there has been is Irish Protestants (who conveniently forget that their Scottish ancestors were dispossessed of their homes and land in the highland clearances by English aristocrats who wanted to use the land as a playground and to raise sheep) passing oppressive and unjust laws to keep Catholic Irish in virtual servitude enforced by an armed Protestant Irish paramilitary force with police powers to legalise their thuggery (B Specials)! The military were sent in to NI in 1969 to protect the Irish Catholic population from the gangs of Irish Protestants that were burning them out of their homes and killing them with impunity. What happened after that was unfortunately inevitable. First the Irish Protestants thought that because the troops were in British uniform and the Protestants claimed to be loyalists the troops were on their side, so believed that troops would protect them when they attacked Catholics. A few dead Protestants later and the troops were hated by the Irish Protestants. Then some equally stupid Irish Catholics mistook troops shooting arsonists and gunmen for the military taking their side and thought they would get some payback. Of course the troops now started shooting Irish Catholic arsonists and gunmen resulting in the troops quickly finding that all the Irish population hated them. At that point the IRA emerged to protect the Catholic community and declared war on the British government, the UDA was formed by Protestant Irish in response and out of that grew the alphabet soup of organised crime gangs that preyed on their own communities in the name of either nationalism or unionism while their leaders became very wealthy on the proceeds of the drugs trade, prostitution and protection rackets they ran. And through all that you had British troops patrolling the streets watching this going on and being powerless to stop it. further because they were in uniform and not Irish that made them an easy target of insult, abuse and the perfect scapegoat for Irish anger at what the Irish were doing to one another. As I have said before troops do not make good police, it was inevitable that control would be lost at times. I am in no way trying to justify any of the wrongs done by any side. All I am trying to do is bring a little unbiased, unemotional perspective to what happened and maybe get one or two here to critically reassess their positions. I would like to make two final points. One: Attacks on the mainland were bound to happen because the British government did not really have the will to solve the NI problem while it was just Irish bombing and killing Irish in NI. Two: It is an open secret in the military that all sides in the troubles had 'volunteers' sign up and do the first 10/11 weeks of basic training before buying themselves out for £20 (cost in my day) in order to get proper military firearms training. " That's interesting, but not the point. The point isn't how I see it, but how the members of the paramilitaries saw it. I was mereley pointing out the flipside to CandMs point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family?" Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's interesting, but not the point. The point isn't how I see it, but how the members of the paramilitaries saw it. I was mereley pointing out the flipside to CandMs point. " Actually it is very much the point. Both you and CandM are voicing sectarian positions. CandM the Brit position, you the Nationalist position. The paramilitaries position was always we are protecting our people. It's all crap, no side comes out of the troubles well. The only people I have any real sympathy for are the poorly educated and uneducated sods that lived in the slums and sink estates across NI who were systematically exploited and abused by all sides. I have told it how it was, not how any side would like to remember it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's interesting, but not the point. The point isn't how I see it, but how the members of the paramilitaries saw it. I was mereley pointing out the flipside to CandMs point. Actually it is very much the point. Both you and CandM are voicing sectarian positions. CandM the Brit position, you the Nationalist position. The paramilitaries position was always we are protecting our people. It's all crap, no side comes out of the troubles well. The only people I have any real sympathy for are the poorly educated and uneducated sods that lived in the slums and sink estates across NI who were systematically exploited and abused by all sides. I have told it how it was, not how any side would like to remember it." . What about us refugees  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about us refugees "I'm guessing it depends on if they are Catholic Muslims or Protestant Muslims... 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about us refugees "Sorry, not funny... I have actually witnessed a couple get a punishment beating and not been able to do anything about it. I heard later that as well as the beating they were given 24 hrs to leave NI and told that if they ever returned the man would be killed, apparently a 'soldier' in a local paramilitary unit wanted the girl and she refused. As I keep saying no matter how it started by 77 when I first went over the water they were all nothing but gangsters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"?" I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? " I haven't ststed my viewpoint on terrorism, ergo, I haven't made any comment on Muslim terrorism. I have merely asked you about your viewpoint, and, when you stated it, asked you further questions about it. You seem now to have revised your opinion on terrorism, because you wish to discredit your first opinion as it was sufficiently badly thought out to engender the rather bizarre situation whereby you appear to have sojmehow offended yourself with your own views. Do people claim that people deserve to be here because of the crimes of Empire or, do they state that you can't co-opt other nations into yours without making them citizens of the conquering nation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? " You are some man for holding grudges across the centuries. I dont know the half of what you claim to know about history, but it seems like an awful lot of backwards rationalisation of misheld extreme opinion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? You are some man for holding grudges across the centuries. I dont know the half of what you claim to know about history, but it seems like an awful lot of backwards rationalisation of misheld extreme opinion" I was being tongue in cheek. Highlighting the double standards regarding certain notions. I don't actually think that stuff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? I haven't ststed my viewpoint on terrorism, ergo, I haven't made any comment on Muslim terrorism. I have merely asked you about your viewpoint, and, when you stated it, asked you further questions about it. You seem now to have revised your opinion on terrorism, because you wish to discredit your first opinion as it was sufficiently badly thought out to engender the rather bizarre situation whereby you appear to have sojmehow offended yourself with your own views. Do people claim that people deserve to be here because of the crimes of Empire or, do they state that you can't co-opt other nations into yours without making them citizens of the conquering nation? " It wasn't badly thought out, Islamic terror merely needed to be defined further because as you've highlighted, it's apples and oranges.. I don't think I've ever heard of the IRA strapping bombs to children and then trying to hand them over to allied troops to do most possible damage. That was experienced first hand by Tim Kennedy. I've yet to see your definition of terrorism either so what is yours? People literally use the crimes of Empire - usually paraphrased as such : 'we (always we) raped their countries so they deserve to be here.''....nothing about integration, just the usual self flaggelation and the standards that are not applied across the board. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do you think? You hate Muslims, I've figured that much. " I dislike Islam, not Muslims. There are many Arab and Coptic Christians for example, so am l hating them for their blood or their dogma? A Coptic Christian was jailed in Egypt for insulting Mohammed. It was on the BBC news website, 5 years he got. Name me one nation that is Muslim and free and truly democratic. Malaysia some say, Malaysia is for all intents and purposes run by the Han Chinese. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? I haven't ststed my viewpoint on terrorism, ergo, I haven't made any comment on Muslim terrorism. I have merely asked you about your viewpoint, and, when you stated it, asked you further questions about it. You seem now to have revised your opinion on terrorism, because you wish to discredit your first opinion as it was sufficiently badly thought out to engender the rather bizarre situation whereby you appear to have sojmehow offended yourself with your own views. Do people claim that people deserve to be here because of the crimes of Empire or, do they state that you can't co-opt other nations into yours without making them citizens of the conquering nation? It wasn't badly thought out, Islamic terror merely needed to be defined further because as you've highlighted, it's apples and oranges.. I don't think I've ever heard of the IRA strapping bombs to children and then trying to hand them over to allied troops to do most possible damage. That was experienced first hand by Tim Kennedy. I've yet to see your definition of terrorism either so what is yours? People literally use the crimes of Empire - usually paraphrased as such : 'we (always we) raped their countries so they deserve to be here.''....nothing about integration, just the usual self flaggelation and the standards that are not applied across the board." My definition of terrorism is a millitary or paramilitary force that the author dislikes. It is a tool of language, therefore you can never see it separatley from whoever wrote it. Do people literally do that? If they do, maybe you have some kind of source for it? I thoughgt that lots of people came here from empire because our government put up posters in their native countries inviting them.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do you think? You hate Muslims, I've figured that much. I dislike Islam, not Muslims. There are many Arab and Coptic Christians for example, so am l hating them for their blood or their dogma? A Coptic Christian was jailed in Egypt for insulting Mohammed. It was on the BBC news website, 5 years he got. Name me one nation that is Muslim and free and truly democratic. Malaysia some say, Malaysia is for all intents and purposes run by the Han Chinese." The issue with Malaysia is corruption in government. Although great people, anyone who opposed the government were fired or arrested. People does not equal government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? I haven't ststed my viewpoint on terrorism, ergo, I haven't made any comment on Muslim terrorism. I have merely asked you about your viewpoint, and, when you stated it, asked you further questions about it. You seem now to have revised your opinion on terrorism, because you wish to discredit your first opinion as it was sufficiently badly thought out to engender the rather bizarre situation whereby you appear to have sojmehow offended yourself with your own views. Do people claim that people deserve to be here because of the crimes of Empire or, do they state that you can't co-opt other nations into yours without making them citizens of the conquering nation? It wasn't badly thought out, Islamic terror merely needed to be defined further because as you've highlighted, it's apples and oranges.. I don't think I've ever heard of the IRA strapping bombs to children and then trying to hand them over to allied troops to do most possible damage. That was experienced first hand by Tim Kennedy. I've yet to see your definition of terrorism either so what is yours? People literally use the crimes of Empire - usually paraphrased as such : 'we (always we) raped their countries so they deserve to be here.''....nothing about integration, just the usual self flaggelation and the standards that are not applied across the board. My definition of terrorism is a millitary or paramilitary force that the author dislikes. It is a tool of language, therefore you can never see it separatley from whoever wrote it. Do people literally do that? If they do, maybe you have some kind of source for it? I thoughgt that lots of people came here from empire because our government put up posters in their native countries inviting them.... " No source but seen it being said in opposition many times. I don't think it could be found in a study, I'll look for prominent left wing advocates that say it. That's as close as you'd get I think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do you think? You hate Muslims, I've figured that much. I dislike Islam, not Muslims. There are many Arab and Coptic Christians for example, so am l hating them for their blood or their dogma? A Coptic Christian was jailed in Egypt for insulting Mohammed. It was on the BBC news website, 5 years he got. Name me one nation that is Muslim and free and truly democratic. Malaysia some say, Malaysia is for all intents and purposes run by the Han Chinese. The issue with Malaysia is corruption in government. Although great people, anyone who opposed the government were fired or arrested. People does not equal government." Then why is it all Islamic governments? Sure there is corruption everywhere but if you get what I'm saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do you think? You hate Muslims, I've figured that much. I dislike Islam, not Muslims. There are many Arab and Coptic Christians for example, so am l hating them for their blood or their dogma? A Coptic Christian was jailed in Egypt for insulting Mohammed. It was on the BBC news website, 5 years he got. Name me one nation that is Muslim and free and truly democratic. Malaysia some say, Malaysia is for all intents and purposes run by the Han Chinese. The issue with Malaysia is corruption in government. Although great people, anyone who opposed the government were fired or arrested. People does not equal government. Then why is it all Islamic governments? Sure there is corruption everywhere but if you get what I'm saying. " I believe there is corruption everywhere. In normal people and the government. But what is unfair is that a corrupt government makes people think that all the people are too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you remove economic hardship, propaganda and oppression/disparity people of all colours and creeds can and are very amicable to each other This should be the case in the UK... A wonderfully multicultural society.... Unfortunately gone to shit thanks to xenophobic rhetoric." Well obviously lots of people disagree with you, in fact the majority do. The wave of populism across the west can't just be ignored and then give a Corbynite answer to the questions of the time. People are rejecting that now and dissenting opinions aren't xenophobia. Labelling any opposing opinion as racism or another ism is literally censorship and just doesn't work anymore.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you remove economic hardship, propaganda and oppression/disparity people of all colours and creeds can and are very amicable to each other This should be the case in the UK... A wonderfully multicultural society.... Unfortunately gone to shit thanks to xenophobic rhetoric. Well obviously lots of people disagree with you, in fact the majority do. The wave of populism across the west can't just be ignored and then give a Corbynite answer to the questions of the time. People are rejecting that now and dissenting opinions aren't xenophobia. Labelling any opposing opinion as racism or another ism is literally censorship and just doesn't work anymore. "Those that are being abused racially can define racism not those who are abusers or those people not being abused .Labelling still works no matter how you wish it it not to.Whats changed is you no longer care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you remove economic hardship, propaganda and oppression/disparity people of all colours and creeds can and are very amicable to each other This should be the case in the UK... A wonderfully multicultural society.... Unfortunately gone to shit thanks to xenophobic rhetoric. Well obviously lots of people disagree with you, in fact the majority do. The wave of populism across the west can't just be ignored and then give a Corbynite answer to the questions of the time. People are rejecting that now and dissenting opinions aren't xenophobia. Labelling any opposing opinion as racism or another ism is literally censorship and just doesn't work anymore. "But but but is the anti immigration argument not strictly economic? 
This majority you talk about are heavily influenced by lies and false facts.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A terrorist to someone like that Israeli apologist is anyone who has the audacity to defend or fight back against oppressors...that simple...he will spew on with his Google history rhetoric like he has in so many other threads here,but I think the vast majority of folk here get the jist of what sort of a creature he is...and as for that Birmingham commentator,I've lost family to your military...any other rediculous comments you wish to make?? Why not reply to me directly? Google history rhetoric? Actually it wasn't rhetoric. It's fact. Research Dal Riada. This is how the Bruce tried to claim high kingship of Ireland because his mother was invading Gaelic nobility. And as for the Google bit, that stopped being an insult in the 90s, no? Or do you still do your research by sending for essays and research papers via pidgeon? And stop taking ownership of victimhood. You don't think the Ulster Scots never lost family? Do you class the Bruce as a Terrorist then? Was he a Muslim? Did you decide when it was that you are more likley to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim yet? If not, are you going to stick to "January 2017"? I'll redefine it because you are being intellectually disengenous if you can't even acknowledge the component Islam has in violent terror, especially when that list comprised of over 95% lslamic terror attacks and all of the most lethal were too. I'll now define terrorism as those who try and commit the most possible terror on civilians and try to inflict the most deaths on men, women and children alike. That's what Islamic terror is about. Even the IRA or UVF never committed mass murderer and sold people into slavery like is happening to Yazidis and Aramean Christians in places like Syria. Thankfully the Muslim countries expelled the Mizrahim (never talked about) or they'd be dead too. Well if we are going to be equal, one of the biggest claims that people make about immigration is that people have a right to be here because of the crimes of Empire. Well surely the same rings true for all? The Bruce was merely going home and as a result all Scots and Manx should be able to live in Ireland, with all the drippings...Just because of what the Dal Riadan Gaelic empire did to Northern Britain. And we should receive citezenship in Iceland too because nearly half of them descend from Celtic slaves that the Norse took. All about equality eh? I haven't ststed my viewpoint on terrorism, ergo, I haven't made any comment on Muslim terrorism. I have merely asked you about your viewpoint, and, when you stated it, asked you further questions about it. You seem now to have revised your opinion on terrorism, because you wish to discredit your first opinion as it was sufficiently badly thought out to engender the rather bizarre situation whereby you appear to have sojmehow offended yourself with your own views. Do people claim that people deserve to be here because of the crimes of Empire or, do they state that you can't co-opt other nations into yours without making them citizens of the conquering nation? It wasn't badly thought out, Islamic terror merely needed to be defined further because as you've highlighted, it's apples and oranges.. I don't think I've ever heard of the IRA strapping bombs to children and then trying to hand them over to allied troops to do most possible damage. That was experienced first hand by Tim Kennedy. I've yet to see your definition of terrorism either so what is yours? People literally use the crimes of Empire - usually paraphrased as such : 'we (always we) raped their countries so they deserve to be here.''....nothing about integration, just the usual self flaggelation and the standards that are not applied across the board. My definition of terrorism is a millitary or paramilitary force that the author dislikes. It is a tool of language, therefore you can never see it separatley from whoever wrote it. Do people literally do that? If they do, maybe you have some kind of source for it? I thoughgt that lots of people came here from empire because our government put up posters in their native countries inviting them.... No source but seen it being said in opposition many times. I don't think it could be found in a study, I'll look for prominent left wing advocates that say it. That's as close as you'd get I think." You made it up, didn't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
