Carryfast:
You seem to have deliberately missed the finer points of detail that I was referring to the Nationalist side in the Irish fight for Independence and the resulting Anglo Irish treaty of 1921.‘Not’ the anti treaty continuity factions which followed which is what you’re referring to.Unless you’re saying that our alliance with America,which also came into being by exactly the same process,also justifies support of Jihad.
So your saying you DONT agree with the what the IRA did? Because this morning you said something along the lines of “at least didnt fly planes into buildings and gave coded warnings” as if that somehow made their actions justified. Im not interested in what happened when. I want YOUR own opinions. Because maybe im reading what you’ve put wrong but it looks like your almost condoning the IRA. Which,as ive said, means you also condone ISIS. The IRA used bombs to “make their point”. So do ISIS. They are both as bad as each other and before you lecture us anymore about anything, I think we have a right to know your own opinions of the IRA actions because you cant defend ones actions without condoning the others
Saying at least they didn’t fly planes into buildings,or carry out machine gun massacres of the general population,or generally use bombs as a method of intentionally causing injury or murder,as opposed to material damage,isn’t condoning anything.It is actually stating the difference in the level of the threat.
So your adopting the method used by boredwidrivin then? Dodge answering the question and reply with a load of nonsense? Because thats what he does when he doesnt want to give an answer he knows makes him look like a hypocrite. There is no difference in level of threat when it comes to purposfully targeting innocent people. YOU are the one who used the words “at least” and who said “justified as they were fighting for the freedom of their country” in two seperate posts. Which implies to me that you DO condone the way the IRA went about their business. And since it is along the same lines as the way ISIS are doing it, that means you DO,in fact, condone the way they go about theirs.
if theres ever a al quaeda attack on the highlande or causeway,then if it comes down to a choice…I vote that they stab you,and let me head home covered in pish…
I wouldn’t say that muslims put the fear of allah up me but the time I had to fly from Oran to Algiers on an Air Algerie plane certainly unsettled me as if I remember correctly I was the only european looking person on the flight, and I was certainly happier when I saw I would be flying back to the UK on a British Airways plane.
dieseldog999:
if theres ever a al quaeda attack on the highlande or causeway,then if it comes down to a choice…I vote that they stab you,and let me head home covered in pish…
Well your full of ■■■■ anyway ,so being covered in ■■■■ ,it’ll feel ok
dieseldog999:
if theres ever a al quaeda attack on the highlande or causeway,then if it comes down to a choice…I vote that they stab you,and let me head home covered in pish…
Well your full of [zb] anyway ,so being covered in ■■■■ ,it’ll feel ok
theres nothing worse than squelching when you sit down…I used to be full of dung till I started offloading it in here.though to be fair,theres usually a queue in front of me.
The-Snowman:
So your adopting the method used by boredwidrivin then? Dodge answering the question and reply with a load of nonsense? Because thats what he does when he doesnt want to give an answer he knows makes him look like a hypocrite. There is no difference in level of threat when it comes to purposfully targeting innocent people. YOU are the one who used the words “at least” and who said “justified as they were fighting for the freedom of their country” in two seperate posts. Which implies to me that you DO condone the way the IRA went about their business. And since it is along the same lines as the way ISIS are doing it, that means you DO,in fact, condone the way they go about theirs.
How can I possibly answer your questions when you can’t even sort out the difference in what I’ve said.That 1) Collins was ‘justified’ in the fight against Churchill 2) not that the ‘IRA’ was justified in trying to over turn the Anglo Irish treaty.
On that note by your logic you are saying our alliance with America is the same as support for Jihad.
How does saying,that the level of the threat we face from Islam and Jihad,is far higher than that of the IRA,translate as so called bs condoning anything in your view.
Im watching the late night news and there was an interview with the director of French association of victims of terrorism, Du Sen Mark or something like this.
He said terrorist attacked our way of life, not people. They did what “their” religion seems to not like about us.
They purposely attacked: football stadium, music club/theater, restaurant etc. When I come to think about it this man is ■■■■ correct.
P.S. The backed up at Kapitan Andreevo border checked point is 15km for lorries, everyone is being checked, all EU citizens to, even though if they are not wanted the check is pointless in my view. All lorries are being scanned and vehicles searched for weapons, explosive etc.
Its the same backed up at Danube bridge Ruse, but instead 15km its 15hrs because Romanians checking all vehicle like we do in Kpt. Andreevo.
Keep in mine if any of you is driving from Turkey into the continent.
The-Snowman:
So your adopting the method used by boredwidrivin then? Dodge answering the question and reply with a load of nonsense? Because thats what he does when he doesnt want to give an answer he knows makes him look like a hypocrite. There is no difference in level of threat when it comes to purposfully targeting innocent people. YOU are the one who used the words “at least” and who said “justified as they were fighting for the freedom of their country” in two seperate posts. Which implies to me that you DO condone the way the IRA went about their business. And since it is along the same lines as the way ISIS are doing it, that means you DO,in fact, condone the way they go about theirs.
How can I possibly answer your questions when you can’t even sort out the difference in what I’ve said.That 1) Collins was ‘justified’ in the fight against Churchill 2) not that the ‘IRA’ was justified in trying to over turn the Anglo Irish treaty.
On that note by your logic you are saying our alliance with America is the same as support for Jihad.
How does saying,that the level of the threat we face from Islam and Jihad,is far higher than that of the IRA,translate as so called bs condoning anything in your view.
More boredwidrivin techniques. Dodge answering by implying to not understand the question.
Did I ask you for a threat level assessment? The fear of getting blown to bits simply by going shopping to a crowded place translates as the same no matter who is planting the bombs.
I asked you QUITE CLEARLY if you condoned the IRAs actions or not. It’s a simple yes or no answer. As I said to you earlier, YOU are the one who used the words “at least” when talking about the IRA this morning. Which implies you think their actions were justified. I don’t give a ■■■■ about collins, Churchill, Anglo saxon treaties or America. I asked YOU for YOUR opinions on the IRA actions since you implyed that giving coded warnings and not flying planes into buildings was “ok”. Im trying to find out if you DO think the IRAs way was ok or not. And since you’ve not not answered THREE times now,im gonna go ahead and assume you DO condone their actions and are actually trying to hide behind a history lesson which,by the way, no one asked for.
The-Snowman:
So your adopting the method used by boredwidrivin then? Dodge answering the question and reply with a load of nonsense? Because thats what he does when he doesnt want to give an answer he knows makes him look like a hypocrite. There is no difference in level of threat when it comes to purposfully targeting innocent people. YOU are the one who used the words “at least” and who said “justified as they were fighting for the freedom of their country” in two seperate posts. Which implies to me that you DO condone the way the IRA went about their business. And since it is along the same lines as the way ISIS are doing it, that means you DO,in fact, condone the way they go about theirs.
How can I possibly answer your questions when you can’t even sort out the difference in what I’ve said.That 1) Collins was ‘justified’ in the fight against Churchill 2) not that the ‘IRA’ was justified in trying to over turn the Anglo Irish treaty.
On that note by your logic you are saying our alliance with America is the same as support for Jihad.
How does saying,that the level of the threat we face from Islam and Jihad,is far higher than that of the IRA,translate as so called bs condoning anything in your view.
More boredwidrivin techniques. Dodge answering by implying to not understand the question.
Did I ask you for a threat level assessment? The fear of getting blown to bits simply by going shopping to a crowded place translates as the same no matter who is planting the bombs.
I asked you QUITE CLEARLY if you condoned the IRAs actions or not. It’s a simple yes or no answer. As I said to you earlier, YOU are the one who used the words “at least” when talking about the IRA this morning. Which implies you think their actions were justified. I don’t give a [zb] about collins, Churchill, Anglo saxon treaties or America. I asked YOU for YOUR opinions on the IRA actions since you implyed that giving coded warnings and not flying planes into buildings was “ok”. Im trying to find out if you DO think the IRAs way was ok or not. And since you’ve not not answered THREE times now,im gonna go ahead and assume you DO condone their actions and are actually trying to hide behind a history lesson which,by the way, no one asked for.
I said Collins was spot on in fighting Churchill.He was also murdered during the civil war that followed his signing of the treaty which created the Irish Republic we know today,by the same anti treaty side and faction of the Nationalist cause that you seem to be referring to.On that note I’d have been on Collins’ side in those two conflicts in ‘both’ cases.I consider that as having answered your question.So no I don’t condone the provisional IRA’s actions post 1921.
While yes not flying planes into buildings and providing coded warnings of bomb attacks obviously did create less of a threat to life than the MO of zb Jihad.
On that note which side of the argument are you on regards the Irish fight for Independence regards the choice between Collins or Churchill.Bearing in mind the examples like the original Bloody Sunday.
On that note I’m guessing your issues are more about my dissent against Churchill than my obvious views regards the anti treaty side of the Irish Nationalist cause.Let alone your bs ideas of downplaying the severity of the Jihadist methodology by comparing it with that of the IRA’s.
Carryfast:
So no I don’t condone the provisional IRA’s actions post 1921.
Could you not just have said that the first time I asked you four hours ago?
Carryfast:
While yes not flying planes into buildings and providing coded warnings of bomb attacks obviously did create less of a threat to life than the MO of zb Jihad.
And yet still the thinly disguised “their way was ok” goes on
Carryfast:
On that note which side of the argument are you on regards the Irish fight for Independence regards the choice between Collins or Churchill.Bearing in mind the examples like the original Bloody Sunday.
Neither. I have no opinion on it since it was about 80 ■■■■■■■ years ago
Carryfast:
Let alone your bs ideas of downplaying the severity of the Jihadist methodology by comparing it with that of the IRA’s.
Im not even CLOSE to down playing the Jihadist dangers. Imnot downplaying the jihadist way by comparing it to the IRA, im saying the IRA were just as bad and dangerous, warnings or not. There’s a big difference.
All I wanted to know is if YOU were justified to lecture us all with statistics and a history lesson no one wanted by finding out if you thought the IRAs methods were “ok” since they are both similar in their idea of killing innocent people for their “cause”.
now…il take my hat off to anyone in here that can now tie in the last few posts that have jumped from isis,to the ira,to link them into comparing them to the generations long war between north and south vietnam,and north and south korea etc…the only reason that i think theres still conflict is because neither side is capable of saying sorry …if you dont get it,try saying it the same way your average beef link does…
Carryfast:
So no I don’t condone the provisional IRA’s actions post 1921.
Could you not just have said that the first time I asked you four hours ago?
Carryfast:
While yes not flying planes into buildings and providing coded warnings of bomb attacks obviously did create less of a threat to life than the MO of zb Jihad.
And yet still the thinly disguised “their way was ok” goes on
Carryfast:
On that note which side of the argument are you on regards the Irish fight for Independence regards the choice between Collins or Churchill.Bearing in mind the examples like the original Bloody Sunday.
Neither. I have no opinion on it since it was about 80 [zb] years ago
Carryfast:
Let alone your bs ideas of downplaying the severity of the Jihadist methodology by comparing it with that of the IRA’s.
Im not even CLOSE to down playing the Jihadist dangers. Imnot downplaying the jihadist way by comparing it to the IRA, im saying the IRA were just as bad and dangerous, warnings or not. There’s a big difference.
All I wanted to know is if YOU were justified to lecture us all with statistics and a history lesson no one wanted by finding out if you thought the IRAs methods were “ok” since they are both similar in their idea of killing innocent people for their “cause”.
It seems strange as to how you seem to be happy to sit on the fence.Regarding wether or not you condone Churchill’s state ordered and conducted reprisals, against innocent people,all over a trivial claim for Irish independence that he knew he would have to settle at some point anyway.Regardless of when it was.
As for your bs claims of any similarity between the MO of Jihad,v Irish Nationalism,even in its worse case form of post 1921 Provisional IRA action.Let’s just say anyone with any sense would be wise to think about a personal risk assessment.Before putting themselves or family anywhere near a foreseeable/likely Jihadist target area as in the example of Paris.Unlike even the worse years of IRA activeties here.
All because of our ridiculous immigration policy that has brought Islamic violence to the streets of the cities of Europe.
Carryfast:
It seems strange as to how you seem to be happy to sit on the fence.Regarding wether or not you condone Churchill’s state ordered and conducted reprisals, against innocent people,all over a trivial claim for Irish independence that he knew he would have to settle at some point anyway.Regardless of when it was.
Yes. Its truly amazing how I don’t have an opinion on something that happened more than 40 years before I was born aint it
Carryfast:
As for your bs claims of any similarity between the MO of Jihad,v Irish Nationalism,even in its worse case form of post 1921 Provisional IRA action.Let’s just say anyone with any sense would be wise to think about a personal risk assessment.Before putting themselves or family anywhere near a foreseeable/likely Jihadist target area as in the example of Paris.Unlike even the worse years of IRA activeties here.
Did I say the MO was the same? Just the ideal. Kill as many innocent people as possible by blowing them up and create fear and panic. If you cant see the similarity then your no where near as intelligent as you like to try and come across as. Giving a coded warning does NOT somehow make them any better. You think giving people a “sporting chance” somehow makes them alright? Give me a break. Even the fact they planted a bomb makes them the same as ISIS since the fear and panic it causes innocent people is enough of an effect regardless of if it went off or not.
But you seem to be conveniently ignoring all the bombs that DID go off. How do you justify THAT as “different”?
Carryfast:
All because of our ridiculous immigration policy that has brought Islamic violence to the streets of the cities of Europe.
Carryfast:
As for your bs claims of any similarity between the MO of Jihad,v Irish Nationalism,even in its worse case form of post 1921 Provisional IRA action.Let’s just say anyone with any sense would be wise to think about a personal risk assessment.Before putting themselves or family anywhere near a foreseeable/likely Jihadist target area as in the example of Paris.Unlike even the worse years of IRA activeties here.
Did I say the MO was the same? Just the ideal. Kill as many innocent people as possible by blowing them up and create fear and panic. If you cant see the similarity then your no where near as intelligent as you like to try and come across as. Giving a coded warning does NOT somehow make them any better. You think giving people a “sporting chance” somehow makes them alright? Give me a break. Even the fact they planted a bomb makes them the same as ISIS since the fear and panic it causes innocent people is enough of an effect regardless of if it went off or not.
But you seem to be conveniently ignoring all the bombs that DID go off. How do you justify THAT as “different”?.
Firstly the term ‘better’ is obviously relative.They’d already shown themselves as crossing the divide between justified v criminal by killing Collins among loads of others and going against all the right thinking calls to settle the issue,of post treaty Ireland and the unavoidable partition of the country,peacefully without further loss of life.Which is where things thankfully are now.
None of which alters the fact of the total difference in intent,between the IRA Bishopsgate bombing v the Jihadist 7/7 attacks or now the Paris attacks for example.The former being all about creating as much material damage as possible v the latter kill as many people as possible.
Poland’s incoming European Affairs Minister Konrad Szymanski said Saturday that Warsaw no longer considered an EU plan to redistribute refugees across Europe as a “political possibility” in light of the Paris attacks that left at least 129 people dead.
The programme – long criticised by the EU’s eastern-most members – has come under fresh criticism after officials said a Syrian passport found at the scene of one of the attacks belonged to an asylum seeker who registered on a Greek island in October.
Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb has said in a reaction to the Paris attacks that it is time to ‘wipe out’ ISIS. ‘I am no military strategist, but as a manager I say ‘it is time to wipe out the 40,000 to 50,000 people who have joined ISIS,’ he told broadcaster Nos. For some people, membership of ISIS is ‘symbolic’ of something, the mayor said. But it is only when they are gone that the problem will have been dealt with. The Muslim community must make its voice heard, Aboutaleb said. ‘Because these events first and foremost turn against Muslims in Europe. All peace-loving Muslims in Europe should distance themselves from this.’
