I like the way you just ignore the fact that Britain defended itself admirably and fought all the way to Berlin to help win the war... just keep slapping yourself on the back lowing.lowing wrote:
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?
Britain is the exception NOT the rule, and without US supply drops, you more than likely would not have held out.Braddock wrote:
I like the way you just ignore the fact that Britain defended itself admirably and fought all the way to Berlin to help win the war... just keep slapping yourself on the back lowing.lowing wrote:
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.
However, I take nothing away from the citizens of GB, that generation was as couragous and defiant against tyranny as any that ever was.
This takes nothing away from my post that Europe as a whole INCLUDING GB appeased Hitler hoping and praying instead of squashing him when it should have.
Europe AS A WHOLE? Oh purleaaze. 'Most' of the nations of Europe were busy staying neutral or trying not to get invaded by the US's staunch allies Soviet Russia. You love lumping 'europe' together don't you? Like it's one country with the same history and same customs and laws etc. Just shows you don't know what you're talking about tbh.lowing wrote:
This takes nothing away from my post that Europe as a whole INCLUDING GB appeased Hitler hoping and praying instead of squashing him when it should have.
And America of course never goes down the appeasement road. They just make money off dictators.
or for that matter 'squashing' a dictator 'when they should have'. Like...hmmm...after the Gulf War when they left Saddam in power and he crushed the Kurds in Northern Iraq? And Cheney said in 92:
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/192908_cheney29.htmlDick Cheney wrote:
I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq
Wow, a shame he didn't listen to himself when they decided to invade this time! Ach, it does me head in tbh - I think they're just all lying bastards.
Anyway, good on those Irish atheists for making that list eh?
Just arrived back in Belfast - wasn't beheaded
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Ireland stayed 'neutral' throughout.Braddock 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.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
aye, but the Irish flooded across the Irish sea and the Atlantic ocean to fight with the British, Canadians & even the Nazi's - unobstructed by their government who didn't interveen to stop them, we're not called the fighting Irish for no reason! can't say the same for the United states though..Dilbert_X wrote:
Ireland stayed 'neutral' throughout.Braddock 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.
You're called the fighting Irish because of the drinking.
Anyway, we didn't need any trenches dug in WW2, that was WW1
Anyway, we didn't need any trenches dug in WW2, that was WW1
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Blame the voters, not the government. Most people wanted an isolationist policy, quoting Washington's farewell address "Commerce with all, alliance to none."IG-Calibre wrote:
aye, but the Irish flooded across the Irish sea and the Atlantic ocean to fight with the British, Canadians & even the Nazi's - unobstructed by their government who didn't interveen to stop them, we're not called the fighting Irish for no reason! can't say the same for the United states though..Dilbert_X wrote:
Ireland stayed 'neutral' throughout.Braddock 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.
US would have gone in anyway, due to lend-lease program and German U-boats destroying American transport ships. Well at least the Americans spent more money and troops defending Europe more than the Euro's did during the Cold War.
And just spent quite a while in city centre, saw one black person - she was coming out of a church.FatherTed wrote:
Just arrived back in Belfast - wasn't beheaded
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Breaking News: Another Example Of European Appeasement Of Islamic Extremists.
"Unidentified gunmen have fired shots at the home of Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish founder of the radical Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, in Norway. The cleric was not hurt, but his son-in-law was taken to hospital having been shot in the arm, police said".
We just keep lying down and appeasing them, don't we! This story will probably give lowing a boner.
"Unidentified gunmen have fired shots at the home of Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish founder of the radical Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, in Norway. The cleric was not hurt, but his son-in-law was taken to hospital having been shot in the arm, police said".
We just keep lying down and appeasing them, don't we! This story will probably give lowing a boner.
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-25 06:55:03)
Nope what it does do is make me wonder, if there are no issues regarding Islam, and there are only a few and they have assimilated just fine and are barely noticeable. Why the violence?Braddock wrote:
Breaking News: Another Example Of European Appeasement Of Islamic Extremists.
"Unidentified gunmen have fired shots at the home of Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish founder of the radical Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, in Norway. The cleric was not hurt, but his son-in-law was taken to hospital having been shot in the arm, police said".
We just keep lying down and appeasing them, don't we! This story will probably give lowing a boner.
"staying neutral" while your nieghbors get invaded. WHat exactly would you call that.ruisleipa wrote:
Europe AS A WHOLE? Oh purleaaze. 'Most' of the nations of Europe were busy staying neutral or trying not to get invaded by the US's staunch allies Soviet Russia. You love lumping 'europe' together don't you? Like it's one country with the same history and same customs and laws etc. Just shows you don't know what you're talking about tbh.lowing wrote:
This takes nothing away from my post that Europe as a whole INCLUDING GB appeased Hitler hoping and praying instead of squashing him when it should have.
And America of course never goes down the appeasement road. They just make money off dictators.
http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007 … saddam.jpg
or for that matter 'squashing' a dictator 'when they should have'. Like...hmmm...after the Gulf War when they left Saddam in power and he crushed the Kurds in Northern Iraq? And Cheney said in 92:http://www.seattlepi.com/national/192908_cheney29.htmlDick Cheney wrote:
I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq
Wow, a shame he didn't listen to himself when they decided to invade this time! Ach, it does me head in tbh - I think they're just all lying bastards.
Anyway, good on those Irish atheists for making that list eh?
Do you see the US staying neutral if Canada was invaded by kneeling to the invaders as something we would do? You shouldn't have done that, you sohuld have fought like Poland since you didn't bother to fight with them.
yah so OK, Switzerland and Luxembourg should've resisted the might of the Wehrmacht? You're TALKING SHIT. I would call them NOT getting involved an attempt to preserve their country, probably, since Germany would've just wakled over anyone at that point. It's not appeasement. Oh, and thank you for ignoring all my comments last time, I guess you agree about your US dictator relationships? Nice we agree on something, I guess.lowing wrote:
"staying neutral" while your nieghbors get invaded. WHat exactly would you call that.
Do you see the US staying neutral if Canada was invaded by kneeling to the invaders as something we would do? You shouldn't have done that, you sohuld have fought like Poland since you didn't bother to fight with them.
As for 'you shouldn't have done that'. Who, exactly, cos I'm pretty sure no-one one this forum was alive when all this was happening. Oh, and for what its worth, the Finns DID resist an invader - only it was 'your' ally - Soviet Russia! Remember that? Seriously lowing, you really are full of shite. There are lots of things 'you' shouldn't have done, including posting that last shitty reply.
Gotta love internet commentators saying how 'we' 'should have' organised ourselves 60 years a go a bit better. How old are you lowing, 12?
Because there are obviously some people with the same mindset as you living in Norway too. Two guys attacked one guy and his kid - did you notice it wasn't an army of angry Norwegians ganging up to lynch him in the street? ...Just a couple of idiots representing a minority taking on another idiot representing a minority.lowing wrote:
Nope what it does do is make me wonder, if there are no issues regarding Islam, and there are only a few and they have assimilated just fine and are barely noticeable. Why the violence?Braddock wrote:
Breaking News: Another Example Of European Appeasement Of Islamic Extremists.
"Unidentified gunmen have fired shots at the home of Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish founder of the radical Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, in Norway. The cleric was not hurt, but his son-in-law was taken to hospital having been shot in the arm, police said".
We just keep lying down and appeasing them, don't we! This story will probably give lowing a boner.
Anyhoo, more news on the appeasement front: France MPs' report backs Muslim face veil ban. We just can't stop bending over backwards to appease these people! By the way, the French interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils... what percentage of France's 65,447,374 population is that lowing?
Again and sorry for my confusion, but if Islam is hardly noticed, so few in numbers, and have assimilatied into Europe so well, why is there outrage over "a few" women in France covering themselves?Braddock wrote:
Because there are obviously some people with the same mindset as you living in Norway too. Two guys attacked one guy and his kid - did you notice it wasn't an army of angry Norwegians ganging up to lynch him in the street? ...Just a couple of idiots representing a minority taking on another idiot representing a minority.lowing wrote:
Nope what it does do is make me wonder, if there are no issues regarding Islam, and there are only a few and they have assimilated just fine and are barely noticeable. Why the violence?Braddock wrote:
Breaking News: Another Example Of European Appeasement Of Islamic Extremists.
"Unidentified gunmen have fired shots at the home of Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish founder of the radical Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, in Norway. The cleric was not hurt, but his son-in-law was taken to hospital having been shot in the arm, police said".
We just keep lying down and appeasing them, don't we! This story will probably give lowing a boner.
Anyhoo, more news on the appeasement front: France MPs' report backs Muslim face veil ban. We just can't stop bending over backwards to appease these people! By the way, the French interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils... what percentage of France's 65,447,374 population is that lowing?
I see, so they have the same mindset as me? I don't go around beating the shit out of anyone Braddock. I go to work make my money pay my bills and raise my family.
Not to sure you ca nhave it both ways Braddock. You can't have it where your argument is Islam is so few in numbers, has assimilated, and is hardly noticeable or making a difference, then post shit saying the opposite. Pick one then get back with me on which side you wanna argue.
Been through all of this before. We we enemies of Germany and Japan once before as well. To point out that Iraq and the US were ONCE friendly and are now enemies is not having an argument at all.ruisleipa wrote:
yah so OK, Switzerland and Luxembourg should've resisted the might of the Wehrmacht? You're TALKING SHIT. I would call them NOT getting involved an attempt to preserve their country, probably, since Germany would've just wakled over anyone at that point. It's not appeasement. Oh, and thank you for ignoring all my comments last time, I guess you agree about your US dictator relationships? Nice we agree on something, I guess.lowing wrote:
"staying neutral" while your nieghbors get invaded. WHat exactly would you call that.
Do you see the US staying neutral if Canada was invaded by kneeling to the invaders as something we would do? You shouldn't have done that, you sohuld have fought like Poland since you didn't bother to fight with them.
As for 'you shouldn't have done that'. Who, exactly, cos I'm pretty sure no-one one this forum was alive when all this was happening. Oh, and for what its worth, the Finns DID resist an invader - only it was 'your' ally - Soviet Russia! Remember that? Seriously lowing, you really are full of shite. There are lots of things 'you' shouldn't have done, including posting that last shitty reply.
Gotta love internet commentators saying how 'we' 'should have' organised ourselves 60 years a go a bit better. How old are you lowing, 12?
The Soviets were not our ally but on paper. They only had the common enemy between them, nothing more , nothing less.
Sorry if you ACTUALLY thought that "you shouldn't have done that" meant you personally. My mistake I shoulda known you would have taken it like that and worded my sentence better as to not confuse you so badly.
You're just not getting it lowing, are you? There are two important points here...lowing wrote:
Again and sorry for my confusion, but if Islam is hardly noticed, so few in numbers, and have assimilatied into Europe so well, why is there outrage over "a few" women in France covering themselves?Braddock wrote:
Because there are obviously some people with the same mindset as you living in Norway too. Two guys attacked one guy and his kid - did you notice it wasn't an army of angry Norwegians ganging up to lynch him in the street? ...Just a couple of idiots representing a minority taking on another idiot representing a minority.lowing wrote:
Nope what it does do is make me wonder, if there are no issues regarding Islam, and there are only a few and they have assimilated just fine and are barely noticeable. Why the violence?
Anyhoo, more news on the appeasement front: France MPs' report backs Muslim face veil ban. We just can't stop bending over backwards to appease these people! By the way, the French interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils... what percentage of France's 65,447,374 population is that lowing?
I see, so they have the same mindset as me? I don't go around beating the shit out of anyone Braddock. I go to work make my money pay my bills and raise my family.
Not to sure you ca nhave it both ways Braddock. You can't have it where your argument is Islam is so few in numbers, has assimilated, and is hardly noticeable or making a difference, then post shit saying the opposite. Pick one then get back with me on which side you wanna argue.
• Firstly, France has a sizeable Muslim population and yet only 1'900 women wear veils... what can one deduce from this? That the vast majority of Muslims living in France are not living by hardcore Middle-Eastern Islamic standards but rather a more integrated, Western form of Islam. This is counter to your uninformed opinion.
• Secondly, France does not have a major problem with women wearing veils (only 1,900 remember), yet it is rigorously enforcing a ban on veils... what can one deduce from this? That France is a country that is proud of its secularism and that it will not lie down and surrender it to any minority group.
The "outrage" you speak of lowing is just other people like you making a noise in the media, a media that are cynical enough to run with it because they know it sells papers and gets viewers. I have a newsflash for you lowing, people not minding Muslims doesn't get much coverage in the news, "outrage" does... in spades.
The Islam4UK fiasco recently is a perfect example of this - a small gang of crackpots made known their empty desire to stage a protest in Wootton Bassett (where many fallen troops pass through on their way home). The insignificant rantings of some idiots should have passed without fanfare only the News latched onto it and gave it a disproportionate amount of airtime. Next thing you know, the leader of the group is on every talk show going getting full value out of his idiotic publicity stunt. The hype builds. More and more airtime is given to the story until eventually it becomes clear that the group had never cleared permission for the march with the authorities and never even fixed a date for the march... it was an empty promise. As Charlie Brooker says, they were no more going to go on that march than the BNP were going to build a mosque out of bacon in the middle of Bradford... and yet they got a full week of headlines out of it.
Yeah we have been through it before, you were wrong before and you're still wrong, you just don't accept it.lowing wrote:
Been through all of this before. We we enemies of Germany and Japan once before as well. To point out that Iraq and the US were ONCE friendly and are now enemies is not having an argument at all.
The Soviets were not our ally but on paper. They only had the common enemy between them, nothing more , nothing less.
Sorry if you ACTUALLY thought that "you shouldn't have done that" meant you personally. My mistake I shoulda known you would have taken it like that and worded my sentence better as to not confuse you so badly.
My simple point was, lowing, that as you identify yourself with the US, of course, and other people in that country of Europe, you try to point out particular epsiodes of 'appeasement', most of which are just your opinion, and your brain somehow trying to make history fit into your own view of the world. You're talking shit about WWII in Europe, you just don't know it, and somehow you try and use that shit to connect to your arguments about this Irish atheists business! You're unbelievable, and ignorant, frankly You seem to think that going to war is the only way to show that you are NOT appeasing a dictator - an accusation on other countries which is hypocritical in the extreme considering all the dicatators the US has put in power and propped up, and still does, and which you choose to ignore. Maybe some coutntries prefer and have preferred to AVOID war instead of leaping at it at the first opportunity. USA USA! etc.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-01-26 23:30:05)
Because it is overreported because of current media trends.lowing wrote:
Nope what it does do is make me wonder, if there are no issues regarding Islam, and there are only a few and they have assimilated just fine and are barely noticeable. Why the violence?Braddock wrote:
Breaking News: Another Example Of European Appeasement Of Islamic Extremists.
"Unidentified gunmen have fired shots at the home of Mullah Krekar, the Kurdish founder of the radical Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, in Norway. The cleric was not hurt, but his son-in-law was taken to hospital having been shot in the arm, police said".
We just keep lying down and appeasing them, don't we! This story will probably give lowing a boner.
If there are terrorists who don't fit the muslim stereotype, it doesn't get reported.
How much attention was paid to the white, right wing, suicide bomber in Oklahoma in 2005? How much attention would've been paid to it if he were a muslim? These are the sorts of questions you seem to be failing to ask.
Well then, the internet, news papers, news stations, politicans, citizens, authors, reporters, and victims are nothing more than paranoid and really have no idea what they are talking about. Sounds good. It is settled. Islam is a religion of peace. Jihad is something the media made up to sell air time and papers.. That about covers it.Braddock wrote:
You're just not getting it lowing, are you? There are two important points here...lowing wrote:
Again and sorry for my confusion, but if Islam is hardly noticed, so few in numbers, and have assimilatied into Europe so well, why is there outrage over "a few" women in France covering themselves?Braddock wrote:
Because there are obviously some people with the same mindset as you living in Norway too. Two guys attacked one guy and his kid - did you notice it wasn't an army of angry Norwegians ganging up to lynch him in the street? ...Just a couple of idiots representing a minority taking on another idiot representing a minority.
Anyhoo, more news on the appeasement front: France MPs' report backs Muslim face veil ban. We just can't stop bending over backwards to appease these people! By the way, the French interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils... what percentage of France's 65,447,374 population is that lowing?
I see, so they have the same mindset as me? I don't go around beating the shit out of anyone Braddock. I go to work make my money pay my bills and raise my family.
Not to sure you ca nhave it both ways Braddock. You can't have it where your argument is Islam is so few in numbers, has assimilated, and is hardly noticeable or making a difference, then post shit saying the opposite. Pick one then get back with me on which side you wanna argue.
• Firstly, France has a sizeable Muslim population and yet only 1'900 women wear veils... what can one deduce from this? That the vast majority of Muslims living in France are not living by hardcore Middle-Eastern Islamic standards but rather a more integrated, Western form of Islam. This is counter to your uninformed opinion.
• Secondly, France does not have a major problem with women wearing veils (only 1,900 remember), yet it is rigorously enforcing a ban on veils... what can one deduce from this? That France is a country that is proud of its secularism and that it will not lie down and surrender it to any minority group.
The "outrage" you speak of lowing is just other people like you making a noise in the media, a media that are cynical enough to run with it because they know it sells papers and gets viewers. I have a newsflash for you lowing, people not minding Muslims doesn't get much coverage in the news, "outrage" does... in spades.
The Islam4UK fiasco recently is a perfect example of this - a small gang of crackpots made known their empty desire to stage a protest in Wootton Bassett (where many fallen troops pass through on their way home). The insignificant rantings of some idiots should have passed without fanfare only the News latched onto it and gave it a disproportionate amount of airtime. Next thing you know, the leader of the group is on every talk show going getting full value out of his idiotic publicity stunt. The hype builds. More and more airtime is given to the story until eventually it becomes clear that the group had never cleared permission for the march with the authorities and never even fixed a date for the march... it was an empty promise. As Charlie Brooker says, they were no more going to go on that march than the BNP were going to build a mosque out of bacon in the middle of Bradford... and yet they got a full week of headlines out of it.
No actually not my opinion historical FACT, try reading up on the appeasement of Hitler during WW2ruisleipa wrote:
Yeah we have been through it before, you were wrong before and you're still wrong, you just don't accept it.lowing wrote:
Been through all of this before. We we enemies of Germany and Japan once before as well. To point out that Iraq and the US were ONCE friendly and are now enemies is not having an argument at all.
The Soviets were not our ally but on paper. They only had the common enemy between them, nothing more , nothing less.
Sorry if you ACTUALLY thought that "you shouldn't have done that" meant you personally. My mistake I shoulda known you would have taken it like that and worded my sentence better as to not confuse you so badly.
My simple point was, lowing, that as you identify yourself with the US, of course, and other people in that country of Europe, you try to point out particular epsiodes of 'appeasement', most of which are just your opinion, and your brain somehow trying to make history fit into your own view of the world. You're talking shit about WWII in Europe, you just don't know it, and somehow you try and use that shit to connect to your arguments about this Irish atheists business! You're unbelievable, and ignorant, frankly You seem to think that going to war is the only way to show that you are NOT appeasing a dictator - an accusation on other countries which is hypocritical in the extreme considering all the dicatators the US has put in power and propped up, and still does, and which you choose to ignore. Maybe some coutntries prefer and have preferred to AVOID war instead of leaping at it at the first opportunity. USA USA! etc.
During WW2? You mean before?lowing wrote:
No actually not my opinion historical FACT, try reading up on the appeasement of Hitler during WW2ruisleipa wrote:
Yeah we have been through it before, you were wrong before and you're still wrong, you just don't accept it.lowing wrote:
Been through all of this before. We we enemies of Germany and Japan once before as well. To point out that Iraq and the US were ONCE friendly and are now enemies is not having an argument at all.
The Soviets were not our ally but on paper. They only had the common enemy between them, nothing more , nothing less.
Sorry if you ACTUALLY thought that "you shouldn't have done that" meant you personally. My mistake I shoulda known you would have taken it like that and worded my sentence better as to not confuse you so badly.
My simple point was, lowing, that as you identify yourself with the US, of course, and other people in that country of Europe, you try to point out particular epsiodes of 'appeasement', most of which are just your opinion, and your brain somehow trying to make history fit into your own view of the world. You're talking shit about WWII in Europe, you just don't know it, and somehow you try and use that shit to connect to your arguments about this Irish atheists business! You're unbelievable, and ignorant, frankly You seem to think that going to war is the only way to show that you are NOT appeasing a dictator - an accusation on other countries which is hypocritical in the extreme considering all the dicatators the US has put in power and propped up, and still does, and which you choose to ignore. Maybe some coutntries prefer and have preferred to AVOID war instead of leaping at it at the first opportunity. USA USA! etc.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I never said there was NO appeasement of Hitler, it just wasn't how you interpret it in your weird head.lowing wrote:
No actually not my opinion historical FACT, try reading up on the appeasement of Hitler during WW2
As Spark said, maybe you should get your dates worked out as you're a bit confused, k?
What, exactly, is your point supposed to be anyway? How does this relate to the atheists?
We are well beyond Ireland now.ruisleipa wrote:
I never said there was NO appeasement of Hitler, it just wasn't how you interpret it in your weird head.lowing wrote:
No actually not my opinion historical FACT, try reading up on the appeasement of Hitler during WW2
As Spark said, maybe you should get your dates worked out as you're a bit confused, k?
What, exactly, is your point supposed to be anyway? How does this relate to the atheists?
The coinicence that this type of legislation is trying to be pushed everywhere for the specific purpose of appeasement to Islam, even so mush as usinfg the same language as Irelands law, and now it has all of a sudden become a prssing issue in Ireland at the same time.
The fact that no one gave a shit about blasphemy before, except for one court case, and no one gave a shit about that either.
The fact that Irleand so readily and easily destroys 2 of western societies basic freedoms, at the delight of Islam and no one else, and for no reason what so ever.
All of this is claimed to be over the Catholics, yet, there has not been any Catholic incitement to riots, or any public outrage. Both of which all of this legislation is supposed to suppress and the hard pressing issue of fixing the law, because all of a sudden it is an issue that needs resolved NOW. Ireland has nothing more pressing to worry about, it must resolve the outrage and incitement issue regarding Catholics, before it is too late.
and finally, Everyone who speaks out against Islam is paranoid, racist, ignorant, stupid, crazy, delusional etc... This included authers, reporters, politicians, newspapers, news stations, internet, citizens, and even Muslims.
If this is the claim fine, however, I will continue to hold my opinion as to who really benefits from Irelands wisedom, and of Islam.
and if you feel the need to beat your chest over such a petty point of my saying during WW2 instead of prior to WW2 so be it.
Take the last word I am over it.
• Internet: Anyone can put what they want on the internet, it's almost completely unregulated. There's also just as many positive sources regarding Islam out there as there are negative, only you choose either to not look for them or to ignore them.lowing wrote:
Well then, the internet, news papers, news stations, politicans, citizens, authors, reporters, and victims are nothing more than paranoid and really have no idea what they are talking about. Sounds good. It is settled. Islam is a religion of peace. Jihad is something the media made up to sell air time and papers.. That about covers it.
• Newspapers: Most newspapers are literally not worth the paper they're written on anymore. Channel 4 had a fascinating documentary about the Daily Mail about a year ago that exposed many of the baseless, unfounded stories they ran attacking the Muslim community. Muslims are the 'bad guys' for the media these days as they've figured out that Islamic controversy sells the most papers. Some newspapers have a little more integrity and present a more balanced view but again you choose to ignore these sources.
• News Stations: Not much better than the newspapers these days. If you sit all day watching FOX, or even Sky News, then you'll get a totally different perception of the world than if you watched EuroNews, but again you would prefer to ignore these news sources. In his series 'Newswipe' Charlie Brooker shows the cynical ways in which modern news is designed according to what attracts more viewers rather than to what is actually going on. I suggest you track down his series, eye-opening and scathingly funny.
• Politicans: The likes of Geert Wilders and Nick Griffin might make a lot of noise regarding Islam but I am more daunted by their political views than I am of the average Muslim. Most prominent politicians are calling for us not to tar all Muslims by the same brush as extremists. Sarkozy is one of the few high-profile politicians to come out more strongly against Islam, and his views haven't even been that extreme.
• Citizens: There are just as many citizens who have no problem with their Muslim neighbours, you just choose to dismiss these people as blinkered.
• Authors: Authors like Bat Ye'or and Oriana Fallaci? Provide me with a book on Islam by someone who isn't a Zionist, a racist, or someone who's just out to make a ton of cash out of controversy and I'll read it with enthusiasm, until then, no thanks.
• Reporters: See newspapers and news stations above.
• Victims: Victims of what? Terror attacks? How many of the general population of Europe have been directly effected by the actions of a small group of extremists? I'm not defending extremists, I'm defending law-abiding Muslims, how many people are victimised by law-abiding Muslims lowing?
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-28 10:48:10)