Would this be for the best in the long run? Would you vote for this?
Printable View
Would this be for the best in the long run? Would you vote for this?
No, because it would play into the hands of those trying to radicalise moderate muslims and drive many more across to the dark side.
What I would do is to to reverse the multicuturism we have seen since the 1970s. Brexit will give us that opportunity when we get hold of our borders. It is more chilling to learn that some of these younger terrorists are British born than that they are muslim per se.
As Norman Tebbitt might have put it, they most certainly do not pass the cricket test.
Perhaps the media could change the way they report things.
Sky news last night you turn it on it has a yellow bar BREAKING NEWS ATTACK IS IMMINENT. You turn over to that you may start to worry. Irresponsible imo and perhaps they could stop giving press to these groups.
I don't see the relevance. There is nothing in the Irish culture about killing kaffirs and that was more to do with land, historical *******s and government policies rather than Catholics vs Protestants. The vast majority of muslims are thoroughly decent people and chose to ignore the nonsense within Kerrang magazine. Islam is far from decent however and should not be excused nor accommodated in the way it has been in civilized societies.
Personally i am for an active policy in removing all religion from society - the very description of a civilized country is one that separates church and state. Nothing wrong with retaining historically beautiful buildings but i see no need to build any more places of worship full-stop.
just let them have their little Islamic state...and then drop a couple nukes on them :nod:
-
SW...I think your mob had a little more class i.e. no flying planes into buildings, beheadings, driving trucks through crowds, suicide bombing a concert filed with kids...nope just coded warnings, targeting posh events like the Grand National and kidnapping a champion racehorse.
Well those links exist as an acknowledgement of the fact that Ireland's 'independence' from the UK is pretty much titular in nature. Ireland remains economically and militarily dependent on the UK - not least in its need to be able to send its surplus workforce here.
Largest immigrant group in the UK apparently. A chief constable visited my school and made a speech which included that nugget.
It was nicely done, he framed it as a question: Who do you think is ...
Obviously no-one present knew or cared. Principally, I think, because Mrs Smallard had forgotten the middle button on her blouse. He seemed to want someone to say "redgunamo!"
When nobody did, he loosed off his shot.
Perhaps. I have an open mind on the issue, defence is pointless expenditure for the Irish because their only potential "enemy" is UK and even during the troubles the British bulldog was lying on its back and wanting to be tickled in the tummy for most of the time.
But if what you say is true how come they devote so much of their energy to trying and grabbing another piece of UK and thereby acquiring more population which they don't know how to feed?
They don't. They gave up their constitutional claim to the six counties as part of the Good Friday agreement. Equally, during the troubles, the unspeakable truth in Irish governmental circles was that the last thing they would have wanted was British withdrawal or a united Ireland, since the Republic simply wouldn't have been able to deal with a security problem on that scale and would have been forced to call in the UN.
Irish posturing over NI has always been just that. It's a problem they are very happy for the Brits to have all to themselves.
Right. That's the thing, isn't it; political correctness, racism (the racket, I mean), multi-culturalism etc. is the love-child of "modern, liberal and secular", ain't it. Which naturally leads to tolerance of intolerance.
Is it really possible to support the former with out also, and at the same time, accepting a measure of responsibilty for the latter? I know I couldn't do it. But then, not even my worst enemies would describe me as "modern, liberal and secular."
You haven't really been fooled by that have you? The Irish politicians saw sense and realised all they have to do to gain the golden apple is to carry on obeying the Pope on the condom question. Within a few years of the Catholics becoming a majority in Ulster they will agitate for a referendum, get it and leave the Union for their own Enosis.
Right. If you think the Republic of Ireland is desperate to get its paws on Northern Ireland, you're wrong. Equally, NI leaving the union by democratic self-determination has never been a problem as far as the UK is concerned. The problem lay in it being dragged out by violence - something the British rightly refused to countenance.
The biggest mistake anyone can make in attempting to understand NI is to think that Britain and Ireland are fighting over it. They're not. Both sides are just dealing with it as an unwished-for historical legacy for which they feel responsibility and whose descent into chaos they are both desperate to avoid.
Oh, the reflexive anti-Brit thing still obtained in the early days - particularly among Fianna Fail - but that is sort of inherent to their history as the anti-treaty party. However, as time wore on, it became increasingly clear to the Irish government that this was not something they could afford to fvck about with. That was made particularly clear after the Dublin bombings in 72 and 73, which brought it home just what the NI problem breaking out would actually mean for the Republic. After that, they pulled themselves together.
As to Ireland accepting NI as part of it, that would depend entirely on what sort of state NI was in at the time. If it were peaceful and the transition could be managed peacefully, then yes. If it were on fire, no.
However, that's beside the point. The point is that NI was only ever a fudge to prevent large-scale civil war and has never been a proposition designed for perpetuity. Britain doesn't want it, but is obliged to keep it, while Ireland feels historically obliged to seem to want it, but has severe doubts on a practical level. Ultimately, everyone is just trying to manage it to a point where a long-term solution can be found. If that is unification with Ireland or it existing as a quasi-independent state guaranteed by both Britain and Ireland then so be it. The mistake is to imagine that this is a land grab by either side. It simply isn't.
The population divides roughly 50/50 between wanting two different unions. That is still a recipe for trouble. The republicans stopped the bombings because they gained on the political arena and firmly believe - Gerry Adams reminded us yesterday - that history is on their side. But if that doesn't happen they will be pissed off.
If it does happen then you can understand that the other half will feel Carsonesque about joining a poorer more limited country which still hangs on to vestiges of old-style Papism.
So don't count your chickens that Ulster will be peaceful forever and aye.
It's a vastly different political landscape now, though.
Ireland is a much less priest-ridden and more modern society now than it was even 20 years ago - the sex abuse scandals saw to that. Equally, you now have the generation that drove the troubles dying out and a younger generation who have grown up without violence and have no desire for it. Plus, of course, the manifest injustices that led to the original outbreak of the troubles no longer exist, so the catalyst for violence isn't really there. Also, the sort of blood and soil nationalist and unionist outlooks that bred Adams and Paisley don't really exist in the same way they used to.
Only a fool or someone with no grasp of history would ever think NI is permanently at peace. However, I am more sanguine about the prospect of it now than I've ever been and certainly can't see the means or motive existing for a serious return to large-scale violence in the short to medium term.
Yes, their enlightened attitude on abortion does them credit too.
This is an Indian summer. Enjoy it, it won't last forever.
I don't remember claiming to be an advocate for the Irish state. :shrug:
I'm merely stating facts as I perceive them. When I was growing up and holidaying with my family in Ireland, contraception, pornography, homosexuality and for some reason a whole variety of British sweets were all illegal, priests and nuns were everywhere, the church effectively ran large parts of education and welfare provision and the telly used to show masses.
Today, they can barely get enough seminarians to fill Maynooth, gay marriage is legal and - god help us - they've given us Mrs Brown's Boys. Yes, abortion is a stumbling block, but to suggest that Ireland is the same priest-ridden sh1thole it was in the 70s is simply to prefer one's prejudices to reality.
Equally, as regards NI, I'm making no guarantees, but I simply don't see the catalyst or the will for a return to violence there. Your assessment - much like your assessment of the Republic - seems to me to be based on a wholly outdated idea of the situation and the attitudes there.
Bearing in mind the political split continues to be almost exclusively a religious one I believe the attitudes there are more outdated than you credit them.
The catalyst (if it ever happens and I hope it doesn't) will be the calls for a referendum to leave the Union.
Focusing on the important issue - which sweets were banned? Don't remember that but then part of the reason for going to Ireland* was to pick up a supply of Golden Crisp and Silvermints so probably didn't notice any other sweets/chocolates that were missing
*as if I had a choice