Lowing you take a fact - the law about religious symbols - and extrapolate from that some bullshit something that fits your own agenda - 'they're really only trying to do away with islamic shit'. Although many people have commented it is to do with the scarves women sometimes wear there have been cases in the years since 1905 when the original law was introduced about other religious symbols - WELL BEFORE 'the muslim shit' became an issue. There have also been several SIKH students who have fallen foul of the law. Fuckin sikh appeasers eh?!?!!lowing wrote:
I'm sorry, did France have a big push for outlawing habits and clerical clothing and crosses? If so I apologize.ruisleipa wrote:
LOL WHAT THE FUCK???????????lowing wrote:
Englands Shraria Law,
Frances banning of all relgious symbols when they really only are trying to away with Islamic shit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … wanes.htmlruisleipa wrote:
Lowing you take a fact - the law about religious symbols - and extrapolate from that some bullshit something that fits your own agenda - 'they're really only trying to do away with islamic shit'. Although many people have commented it is to do with the scarves women sometimes wear there have been cases in the years since 1905 when the original law was introduced about other religious symbols - WELL BEFORE 'the muslim shit' became an issue. There have also been several SIKH students who have fallen foul of the law. Fuckin sikh appeasers eh?!?!!lowing wrote:
I'm sorry, did France have a big push for outlawing habits and clerical clothing and crosses? If so I apologize.ruisleipa wrote:
LOL WHAT THE FUCK???????????
As for 'England's Sharia Law' - you don't know what you're talking about and are just making an idiot out of yourself. But since we all know you never change your mind about anything I don't know why you bother participating in these 'discussions'.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 04:31:37)
"Their own Christian symbols" ...this may disappoint you lowing but France is a SECULAR State. Secularism underpinned the French revolution and has been an integral part of the State ever since. That is a fact lowing. The nation of France is entirely independent of any religion, deal with it. You can harp on about how many Christians live there if you like but since the 18th century France, as a nation, has been secular.lowing wrote:
DID FRANCE HAVE PUSH TO OUTLAW HABIT AND CLERICAL CLOTHING AND CROSSES BEFORE THE INFLUX OF ISLAM? NO?
Well then it would appear that "religious symbols" only became an issue after Islam started becoming an issue in France. And France, so as not to appear discriminating, appeased Islam by outlawing even their own Christion symbols in order to do away with the Islamic ones.
There you go again lowing, "Christian countries". France is SECULAR, please take that on board. To date, no EU country has changed their laws to allow for honour killings, stonings, or beheadings; they haven't even enforced pre-existing, Christian-inspired blasphemy laws to punish people who have criticized and insulted Islam.lowing wrote:
Sorry, Braddock the problem is in Christian countries religion is not a way of life, it is not in your face and does not run every aspect of your life. Islam is a culture that does not blend well with western society so it is more than just banning religious symbols, it is an effort to keep Middle Eastern morality, laws, and life style in the middle east , where it belongs. It has little to do with faith in my opinion.
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-21 04:40:20)
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh.......... WAS THERE A BIG PUSH TO BAN HABITS CROSSES AND CLERICAL GARB BEFORE ISLAM BECAME AN ISSUE? NO?Braddock wrote:
"Their own Christian symbols" ...this may disappoint you lowing but France is a SECULAR State. Secularism underpinned the French revolution and has been an integral part of the State ever since. That is a fact lowing. The nation of France is entirely independent of any religion, deal with it. You can harp on about how many Christians live there if you like but since the 18th century France, as a nation, has been secular.lowing wrote:
DID FRANCE HAVE PUSH TO OUTLAW HABIT AND CLERICAL CLOTHING AND CROSSES BEFORE THE INFLUX OF ISLAM? NO?
Well then it would appear that "religious symbols" only became an issue after Islam started becoming an issue in France. And France, so as not to appear discriminating, appeased Islam by outlawing even their own Christion symbols in order to do away with the Islamic ones.
If France had banned the religious symbols and style of dress of only one religion that would not have been 'the appearance of discrimination', that would have BEEN discrimination. Why should one Middle Eastern religion (Christianity) be allowed in a secular State while another (Islam) is not?There you go again lowing, "Christian countries". France is SECULAR, please take that on board. To date, no EU country has changed their laws to allow for honour killings, stonings, or beheadings; they haven't even enforced pre-existing, Christian-inspired blasphemy laws to punish people who have criticized and insulted Islam.lowing wrote:
Sorry, Braddock the problem is in Christian countries religion is not a way of life, it is not in your face and does not run every aspect of your life. Islam is a culture that does not blend well with western society so it is more than just banning religious symbols, it is an effort to keep Middle Eastern morality, laws, and life style in the middle east , where it belongs. It has little to do with faith in my opinion.
All you have is a collection of subjective rants and sensationalist stories about "proposed" holidays and laws culled from a host of unregulated, questionable websites and blogs... in terms of cold hard facts your argument simply does not add up. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you truly believe in your heart of hearts that Europe is on its knees and ready to crumble in the face of Islamic apocalypse (if I was on a strict diet of the kind of reading material you're on I'd probably start to turn a bit paranoid too), but the fact of the matter is, things just aren't as exciting or dramatic as all of that.
People just need to calm the fuck down. This is not an episode of 24.
Who cares? The fact is a secular State like France has mechanisms in place with which to deal with any religious groups that seek to challenge France's secular values, and these are being enforced... you should be happy lowing, this is what you have wanted all along.lowing wrote:
Again I ask has there been a push in France to ban crosses, habits, or clerical garb before Islam became an issue? No?
That's the example I mentioned earlier in this thread where two people, if they both freely agree to it, can avail of alternative dispute resolution in civil cases... just like the Jewish community in Britain have had for years.lowing wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
That's the same case as above... the option for Islamic rulings in civil law between a willing plaintiff and defendant, just like the Jewish community in Britain have had for years.lowing wrote:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1687576.ece
Yet again, that's the same case as above... the option for Islamic rulings in civil law between a willing plaintiff and defendant, just like the Jewish community in Britain have had for years.lowing wrote:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522
That's a link to the Wikipedia page for Sikhism in France, I can get you one of those for Catholicism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism if you like too? ...not sure what your point is.lowing wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_France
There's also a lot of talk about torture in Guantanamo bay, man-made climate change, and America having invaded Iraq for oil... are we to presume you take all these to be true as well? At least acknowledge your own inconsistency man.lowing wrote:
For something that hasn't happened there sure is a lot of discussion about its happening.
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-21 04:59:43)
You're supposed to be arguing about Islamic appeasement and yet you're pointing out (in all caps no less) that France has in fact been appeasing Christianity all these years... interesting tactic, not sure where you're going with it though. You just can't seem to face the fact that France has stood up to religions like Islam, you'd rather worry about the hypothetical motivation behind such decisions. I don't want to live in a Europe where a particular religion is forced down my throat, neither do I want to live in a Europe where a person is allowed to practice one religion but banned from practicing another... France's resolution satisfies both these criteria.lowing wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh.......... WAS THERE A BIG PUSH TO BAN HABITS CROSSES AND CLERICAL GARB BEFORE ISLAM BECAME AN ISSUE? NO?
We've covered this lowing, a referendum would have been too expensive and specifying one religion in particular was not in line with EU equality laws (laws I happen to agree with), so we had to redefine the law. Also, the Government clearly aren't enforcing the laws as there has been no mention of a prosecution against Atheist-Ireland... time will tell on that one.lowing wrote:
Ok so lets recap then... A law that strips your basic freedoms, to the delight of Islam and no one else, and was never REALLY a pressing issue before. I know I know, it was for the troublesome Catholics.
As I said before, I don't want to live in a Europe where a particular religion is forced down my throat, neither do I want to live in a Europe where a person is allowed to practice one religion but banned from practicing another... France's resolution satisfies both these criteria. We've had experience of one Middle Eastern religion being singled out for persecution here in the past, it was called the holocaust and I'm not looking forward to a sequel.lowing wrote:
laws that all of sudden ban ALL religious symbols, where as before Islam, it was a non-issue.
Well covered by me pointing out that it's only in civil law cases where both parties freely enter into it... falling in line with what the Jewish community have been allowed for years.lowing wrote:
Sharia Law in England, think that is well covered by now.
I'd rather no religious holidays to be honest, just bank holidays. Get back to me when these get passed and we'll discuss them then.lowing wrote:
Proposed Muslim holidays in Europe, do you have any doubt that this will be a reality?
Yawn. Less than a percent here in Ireland lowing. Less than one percent. People always overhype population growth rates even though they always level out as a function of increased affluence and from one generation to the next in developed countries.lowing wrote:
A well documented Islamic population growth in Europe.
SARS, African killer bees, 'Reds under the beds', mad cow disease, swine flu, flesh eating virus, Y2K bug... yawn.lowing wrote:
Constant media attention regarding Islamic assimilation or lack there of.
At last! Thank you.lowing wrote:
Yer right Braddock, I am wrong, I see no problems whatsoever. I concede.
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-21 05:17:44)
Well if you can post where France has been after banning habits crosses and clerical garb before Islam became an issue, do so. THey have not been appeasing Christians, France is made up of Christians Christianity is accepted in France. Apparently ISlam is not, (I could never guess why however) If not for Islam, nothing would have been done about religious symbols because it was a non issueBraddock wrote:
Who cares? The fact is a secular State like France has mechanisms in place with which to deal with any religious groups that seek to challenge France's secular values, and these are being enforced... you should be happy lowing, this is what you have wanted all along.lowing wrote:
Again I ask has there been a push in France to ban crosses, habits, or clerical garb before Islam became an issue? No?That's the example I mentioned earlier in this thread where two people, if they both freely agree to it, can avail of alternative dispute resolution in civil cases... just like the Jewish community in Britain have had for years.lowing wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.eceThat's the same case as above... the option for Islamic rulings in civil law between a willing plaintiff and defendant, just like the Jewish community in Britain have had for years.lowing wrote:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1687576.eceYet again, that's the same case as above... the option for Islamic rulings in civil law between a willing plaintiff and defendant, just like the Jewish community in Britain have had for years.lowing wrote:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522That's a link to the Wikipedia page for Sikhism in France, I can get you one of those for Catholicism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism if you like too? ...not sure what your point is.lowing wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_FranceThere's also a lot of talk about torture in Guantanamo bay, man-made climate change, and America having invaded Iraq for oil... are we to presume you take all these to be true as well? At least acknowledge your own inconsistency man.lowing wrote:
For something that hasn't happened there sure is a lot of discussion about its happening.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 05:25:25)
You harp on about how something needs to be done to stop Islam eroding Western values, then when something is done you complain about it. You just hate Muslims lowing, admit it... oh sorry, I meant to say you just hate 'Islam', hating Muslims would make you sectarian and we can't have that. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion that Europeans allowed to get a foothold here many, many years ago. The only thing that has made it "accepted" is time. Who knows lowing, perhaps Islam will do the same and in a thousand years people will look back at your posts as though you were a sort of modern day Pagan standing up for the ancient God and his 'Western ways'.lowing wrote:
Well if you can post where France has been after banning habits crosses and clerical garb before Islam became an issue, do so. THey have not been appeasing Christians, France is made up of Christians. Christianity is accepted in France. Apparently ISlam is not, (I could never guess why however) If not for Islam, nothing would have been done about religious symbols because it was a non issue.
Since a few hundred years ago lowing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stmlowing wrote:
Since when were the Jews enforcing separate laws regarding criminal offenses? Islam in England is. Why is there a concern IN ENGLAND, ( not mine) that this will lead to a parallel legal system in England in the coming years?
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-21 05:43:00)
As long as you admit what France has done is in response to Islam. Also what I am harping on is the appeasement factor of it all. France has no problem with Christianity but has seen fit to outlaw its symbols in order to not look like it is discriminating against Islam.Braddock wrote:
You harp on about how something needs to be done to stop Islam eroding Western values, then when something is done you complain about it. You just hate Muslims lowing, admit it... oh sorry, I meant to say you just hate 'Islam', hating Muslims would make you sectarian and we can't have that. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion that Europeans allowed to get a foothold here many, many years ago. The only thing that has made it "accepted" is time. Who knows lowing, perhaps Islam will do the same and in a thousand years people will look back at your posts as though you were a sort of modern day Pagan standing up for the ancient God and his 'Western ways'.lowing wrote:
Well if you can post where France has been after banning habits crosses and clerical garb before Islam became an issue, do so. THey have not been appeasing Christians, France is made up of Christians. Christianity is accepted in France. Apparently ISlam is not, (I could never guess why however) If not for Islam, nothing would have been done about religious symbols because it was a non issue.Since a few hundred years ago lowing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stmlowing wrote:
Since when were the Jews enforcing separate laws regarding criminal offenses? Islam in England is. Why is there a concern IN ENGLAND, ( not mine) that this will lead to a parallel legal system in England in the coming years?
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha so are you now claiming that the French revolution was in response to Islam Lowing? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight lowing (I think I may have quite literally bust my gut laughing at that), you really are a fucking cretin, & I can't believe I haven't said that for at least 4 pages or more..lowing wrote:
As long as you admit what France has done is in response to Islam...
Really? you mean you have "literally" busted a gut laughing?IG-Calibre wrote:
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha so are you now claiming that the French revolution was in response to Islam Lowing? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight lowing (I think I may have quite literally bust my gut laughing at that), you really are a fucking cretin, & I can't believe I haven't said that for at least 4 pages or more..lowing wrote:
As long as you admit what France has done is in response to Islam...
not only that, but I literally laughed my head off too... i'm actually sitting here.. headless... typing this reply as my head rolls around the floor; eyes blinded by tears of laughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... imagine that...Lowing you're a comedic genius!! ever thought about the stage?lowing wrote:
Really? you mean you have "literally" busted a gut laughing?IG-Calibre wrote:
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha so are you now claiming that the French revolution was in response to Islam Lowing? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight lowing (I think I may have quite literally bust my gut laughing at that), you really are a fucking cretin, & I can't believe I haven't said that for at least 4 pages or more..lowing wrote:
As long as you admit what France has done is in response to Islam...
Seriously? Your fuckin' head fell off!!???IG-Calibre wrote:
not only that, but I literally laughed my head off too... i'm actually sitting here.. headless... typing this reply as my head rolls around the floor; eyes blinded by tears of laughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... imagine that...Lowing you're a comedic genius!! ever thought about the stage?lowing wrote:
Really? you mean you have "literally" busted a gut laughing?IG-Calibre wrote:
Mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha so are you now claiming that the French revolution was in response to Islam Lowing? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight lowing (I think I may have quite literally bust my gut laughing at that), you really are a fucking cretin, & I can't believe I haven't said that for at least 4 pages or more..
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 09:48:15)
Lowing, if they had outlawed only Islam's symbols it WOULD HAVE BEEN discriminating against Islam, not just "the appearance of discriminating", do you not understand that? Hitler didn't pick on all religions with the final solution, he singled out Jews. What you're advocating is the exclusive discrimination of one religious group... I'm sorry lowing but that's illegal here in Europe now.lowing wrote:
As long as you admit what France has done is in response to Islam. Also what I am harping on is the appeasement factor of it all. France has no problem with Christianity but has seen fit to outlaw its symbols in order to not look like it is discriminating against Islam.
Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause please for lowing... after only 17 pages he finally manages to find an example of 'appeasement' that we Europeans can genuinely be annoyed at. Well done, you're on a roll now. I'm not happy that these religious courts are allowed to exist as an option but until they do away with the Beth Din courts there's nothing we can do about Sharia courts - I do not want one religion being given preferential treatment over another, not on my watch. Do away with them, but do away with them all.lowing wrote:
interesting: from your source
British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.
from my source:
"The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. "
Last I checked, Domestic violence was a criminal matter.
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-21 10:28:39)
It is not religion France is after, it is culture, Islamic culture is best left in the ME not in France, Europe or the US. It is time you started recognizing Islam is much more than howe many times of day you pray.Braddock wrote:
Lowing, if they had outlawed only Islam's symbols it WOULD HAVE BEEN discriminating against Islam, not just "the appearance of discriminating", do you not understand that? Hitler didn't pick on all religions with the final solution, he singled out Jews. What you're advocating is the exclusive discrimination of one religious group... I'm sorry lowing but that's illegal here in Europe now.lowing wrote:
As long as you admit what France has done is in response to Islam. Also what I am harping on is the appeasement factor of it all. France has no problem with Christianity but has seen fit to outlaw its symbols in order to not look like it is discriminating against Islam.Ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause please for lowing... after only 17 pages he finally manages to find an example of 'appeasement' that we Europeans can genuinely be annoyed at. Well done, you're on a roll now. I'm not happy that these religious courts are allowed to exist as an option but until they do away with the Beth Din courts there's nothing we can do about Sharia courts - I do not want one religion being given preferential treatment over another, not on my watch. Do away with them, but do away with them all.lowing wrote:
interesting: from your source
British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.
from my source:
"The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. "
Last I checked, Domestic violence was a criminal matter.
By the way, these Shariah courts were not specially introduced by the Government to appease anyone, they are merely arbitration tribunals that exploit a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. I know that doesn't fit easily with your Islamic conspiracy but I'm afraid it's the truth. Apparently the Islamic community have lawyers too who can understand and exploit loopholes in the law like other members of society.
Now, getting back to THE REP. OF IRELAND, which I believe was the original focus of this topic... you've yet to give any examples of the Irish Government appeasing Islamic extremists, or indeed bowing to Islamic pressure by redefining the murky nature of our outdated blasphemy laws.
No room for islamic culture in France? Liberté, égalité, fraternité! - tell that to all the Muslim war heroes from her North African colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia who died and spilled blood for her liberation during WW2!!lowing wrote:
It is not religion France is after, it is culture, Islamic culture is best left in the ME not in France, Europe or the US. It is time you started recognizing Islam is much more than howe many times of day you pray..
Ummm what part of IN FRANCE did you miss?IG-Calibre wrote:
No room for islamic culture in France? Liberté, égalité, fraternité! - tell that to all the Muslim war heroes from her North African colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia who died and spilled blood for her liberation during WW2!!lowing wrote:
It is not religion France is after, it is culture, Islamic culture is best left in the ME not in France, Europe or the US. It is time you started recognizing Islam is much more than howe many times of day you pray..
what part of you're talking out your fucking hoop do you not understand?lowing wrote:
Ummm what part of IN FRANCE did you miss?IG-Calibre wrote:
No room for islamic culture in France? Liberté, égalité, fraternité! - tell that to all the Muslim war heroes from her North African colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia who died and spilled blood for her liberation during WW2!!lowing wrote:
It is not religion France is after, it is culture, Islamic culture is best left in the ME not in France, Europe or the US. It is time you started recognizing Islam is much more than howe many times of day you pray..
Sorry, wasn't sure if you understood that IN FRANCE pretty much meant, IN FRANCE. Hard to tell with your guts busted and your head rolling around on the floor and all. How is all that by the way?IG-Calibre wrote:
what part of you're talking out your fucking hoop do you not understand?lowing wrote:
Ummm what part of IN FRANCE did you miss?IG-Calibre wrote:
No room for islamic culture in France? Liberté, égalité, fraternité! - tell that to all the Muslim war heroes from her North African colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia who died and spilled blood for her liberation during WW2!!
Which nation was best placed to deal with Hitler? You know, the one not utterly crippled with debt from fighting the biggest war the world had ever seen. You know, the country that only had 110,000 casualties from WWI - as opposed to 1.1 million.lowing wrote:
It was European appeasement that let Hilter get as far as he did. THis is his point. YOU should have dealt with him earlier, he was after all your problem to deal with in the beginning.IG-Calibre wrote:
I think you will find it was the German's who were switching the ol' ovens to gas mark 6, not the British or the French - also the war was well under way before your kith and kin were firing up the ovens and getting the "Final Soloution" under way..lowing wrote:
(...) "Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf Hitler needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements."
Makes perfect sense. What is about this that does n't make sense to you?
Sorry you fail to see it, but history has not failed to see it. If I am not mistaken Germany was in that same war you speak of, AND THEY LOST, yet it was allowed to rebuild and rearm while you all watched. So presumably Germany was just as nad if not worse, yet managed to take over Europe 21 years later. How is that?Bertster7 wrote:
Which nation was best placed to deal with Hitler? You know, the one not utterly crippled with debt from fighting the biggest war the world had ever seen. You know, the country that only had 110,000 casualties from WWI - as opposed to 1.1 million.lowing wrote:
It was European appeasement that let Hilter get as far as he did. THis is his point. YOU should have dealt with him earlier, he was after all your problem to deal with in the beginning.IG-Calibre wrote:
I think you will find it was the German's who were switching the ol' ovens to gas mark 6, not the British or the French - also the war was well under way before your kith and kin were firing up the ovens and getting the "Final Soloution" under way..
Which nation was last to enter the war?
As soon as Hitler took military action against another state, the British declared war on him. The same cannot be said for your country.
I fail to see how you can use this as an example of European appeasement when your own nation dithered for far longer than virtually any European states and half the European states were doing the exact opposite of appeasement.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 15:54:31)
That still doesn't explain why the US sat on its hands for so long when a world war was in progress... appeasement indeed.lowing wrote:
Sorry you fail to see it, but history has not failed to see it. If I am not mistaken Germany was in that same war you speak of, AND THEY LOST, yet it was allowed to rebuild and rearm while you all watched. So presumably Germany was just as nad if not worse, yet managed to take over Europe 21 years later. How is that?Bertster7 wrote:
Which nation was best placed to deal with Hitler? You know, the one not utterly crippled with debt from fighting the biggest war the world had ever seen. You know, the country that only had 110,000 casualties from WWI - as opposed to 1.1 million.lowing wrote:
It was European appeasement that let Hilter get as far as he did. THis is his point. YOU should have dealt with him earlier, he was after all your problem to deal with in the beginning.
Which nation was last to enter the war?
As soon as Hitler took military action against another state, the British declared war on him. The same cannot be said for your country.
I fail to see how you can use this as an example of European appeasement when your own nation dithered for far longer than virtually any European states and half the European states were doing the exact opposite of appeasement.
Well, mainly because it was your war. We dumped money and supplies into the cause, should have been enough since Germany was SUPPOSED tobe kept down by the rest of youBraddock wrote:
That still doesn't explain why the US sat on its hands for so long when a world war was in progress... appeasement indeed.lowing wrote:
Sorry you fail to see it, but history has not failed to see it. If I am not mistaken Germany was in that same war you speak of, AND THEY LOST, yet it was allowed to rebuild and rearm while you all watched. So presumably Germany was just as nad if not worse, yet managed to take over Europe 21 years later. How is that?Bertster7 wrote:
Which nation was best placed to deal with Hitler? You know, the one not utterly crippled with debt from fighting the biggest war the world had ever seen. You know, the country that only had 110,000 casualties from WWI - as opposed to 1.1 million.
Which nation was last to enter the war?
As soon as Hitler took military action against another state, the British declared war on him. The same cannot be said for your country.
I fail to see how you can use this as an example of European appeasement when your own nation dithered for far longer than virtually any European states and half the European states were doing the exact opposite of appeasement.
No lowing, I'll think you'll find it was RELIGIOUS symbols and dress that France banned, fact.lowing wrote:
It is not religion France is after, it is culture, Islamic culture is best left in the ME not in France, Europe or the US. It is time you started recognizing Islam is much more than howe many times of day you pray.
Do you mean "the beaten path of appeasement" which I have asked for examples of and that you have not provided? I want laws, policy concessions, and landmark court cases lowing... not the subjective rants of ex-US marines. Ireland has indeed taken a baffling step away from free speech with the redefining of its blasphemy law but you do not have one scrap of actual evidence to prove it is anything to do with the Government trying to appease 0.8% of the population (a minority that have never had an organised protest against Government policy in living memory).lowing wrote:
Already said, 15 pages ago, I base my OPINION on the timeliness of this legislation, the beaten path of appeasement it follows, the fact that you so readily throw away your western freedoms for no pressing reason whatsoever, the fac that this legilslatiuon pleases no one except Islam. Intended or not, Irlenad has taken a step away from western society and freedom. It is discussed within your own media, so stop acting like my thoughts and agreement are out of left field.