RugbyRebels

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:You need to calm down ONL. No one is saying that Manchester was chosen for the attack, because Manchester is 'soft'. The people who planned and conducted the attack chose their target in order to achieve the greatest effect and what Sandy and I are saying is that Ireland, particularly the north has become so inured that the terror effect of bombing us might be less that an attack elsewhere.

I deliberately mentioned Dublin and Monaghan in one of my earlier posts to see if it might trigger some recognition. Just over 43 years ago, loyalist bombs in Dublin and Monaghan killed 33 (Including a full-term pregnant girl) and injured over 300 - of course this hurt, but amidst all of the misery of those times, it was just one atrocity heaped upon many others.

But let me ask you, were you aware that a prison officer in Belfast was killed by a bomb under his car last March? Or that a policeman was shot and wounded in a terrorist gun attack on Belfast's Crumlin Road this February? Or that there were 5 killings in Northern Ireland last year that were attributed to paramilitary (Terrorist) punishment shootings? We live with this every fucking day and no one feels the need to gather to weep over Seamus Heaney's best bits or blurt out shit renditions of Stiff Little Fingers' greatest hits.

And I am a little confused why you might loose the rag over a couple of comments about Ireland, when you made your 'best thing in 200 years' comment about the 1996 IRA bombing of Manchester. I dare say that it did allow for a subsequent remodeling of the city, but it can't have been that brilliant for the 200-odd people who were injured by it, or the families whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed - and we're all still paying for the £Billion+ insurance bill. It may interest you to know that I deployed to South Armagh with a rifle company 5 days after the Docklands bomb and was serving there when Manchester was bombed. Believe me, non of us thought it was particularly brilliant at all.

That was tragic. Worst lost of life in one day during the troubles I think.

While the OED will prove me wrong, I don't consider it tragic, V-G. To me, tragic is when a child dies of malaria for the want of a $5 mosquito net or a village is wiped out by a mud-slide.

Dublin/Monaghan, Omagh, Nice, Manchester, Minya were not tragedies. They were man-made, hate-fueled atrocities.

Hear what you say SW but it was actually you who claimed there had been no Islamic bombings in Ireland because the protagonists were too scared, tongue in cheek or not (and if it were then frankly it's a bit soon). I'm not remotely calm, no, but it's less than a week since the bomb and frankly I'm not ready for people telling me they won't get bombed by ISIS because theyre so fecking hard.
To be honest yes I was aware of the incidents you mention which will probably surprise you given your, again perhaps joking, suggestion that no one would notice if such a thing happened in Ireland.
I'm sure the previous bomb was horrific, in fact I know so as I was evacuated from the Armadale centre that morning and one of the first civilians back in to review its structural stability afterwards so thanks for your insight on that.

I get that you are affected by what happened last week, but I would caution you not to rail against those of us who have been fighting these fecking people for decades.

The tone of my comments were not that far removed from your own comments about 1996 and, I am sorry, your being in the Arndale after the event (No matter how soon) does not quite add up to some of the miserable shit that the likes of sandy, optimistic, me and (I think) vengeful have had to fight through. I was, incidentally, buying a shed 200 metres from yesterday's shooting in Bangor but don't feel remotely invested in it.

I am sorry, but I think that vigils, so-called acts of defiance and post-atrocity 'celebrations' of unity are bollocks and reflect some pathetic and ludicrous post-Diana demand to share (Or just to be seen to share) in tragedy. When Westminster was attacked earlier this year the TV news coverage was dismal, switching from vulturine to repulsively saccharine as the media salivated over a rising casualty rate, realised that it wasn't going to get the UK into the big-leagues of Paris and Nice but then seized on the heroic death of an unarmed policeman. I found this gratuitous, repulsive and deeply disrespectful to those most closely affected. I find the broader public response to the litany of terrorist attack to be equally disrespectful and pathetic. The playing of Reveille (Presumably following the playing of the last Post) at one of the so-called commemorations last week shows an alarming tendency to militarise murder victims - a tendency that was also on shown when the victims of the Tunisian beach attack were repatriated through RAF Lyneham.

As I said earlier, terrorism does not pose an existential threat to our democracy. That is scant comfort to those who have really suffered as a consequence of the likes of the Manchester bombings, but it will take far more than vigils, futile acts of unity and demonstrations of resilience if this scourge is to be overcome. Saying we can take it and that our way of life will not be changed does feck all to discourage, deter or interdict terrorists. But the alternatives are perhaps even more bleak.

I am tempted to invite you to stridently stick your sanctimony up your arse.

onlynameleft wrote:Hear what you say SW but it was actually you who claimed there had been no Islamic bombings in Ireland because the protagonists were too scared, ...

A terrorist needs to be able to get in, cause maximum terror (through maximum casualties) and get out. The suicide bomber does not worry about getting out, but he is not some Buddhist monk bent on self-immolating sacrificial protest; the first two requirements still apply.

I will say that an Islamic terrorist's chances of being compromised during the planning and preparation phases are far greater in Ireland (north and south) than they are elsewhere in most of Europe, because Muslim immigrants are living within close-knit Irish communities that have, over the centuries, become aware, if not deeply suspicious, of outsiders - we are, in short, nosy feckers. I would also say that the Troubles have made us more wary of dangers and more willing to report suspicions either to the police or to other less benign authorities. Either way the chances of an Islamic terrorist conducting a successful mass murder attack are, in my view, less likely than elsewhere in the UK or Europe.

And Stones was absolutely right, the 2 Glasgow bombers were fecking dire, but it doesn't alter the fact that the first reaction of the Weegie cabbie was to run in and kick the crap out of one of them. Contrast this with the more basic and understandable instinct that the immediate aftermath videos show of crowds running away in blind panic.

Mostly they were little girls at a pop concert, mate, which probably explains it.
As for the last line of your previous post I can only return the compliment.

Grand so.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

onlynameleft wrote:Hear what you say SW but it was actually you who claimed there had been no Islamic bombings in Ireland because the protagonists were too scared, ...

A terrorist needs to be able to get in, cause maximum terror (through maximum casualties) and get out. The suicide bomber does not worry about getting out, but he is not some Buddhist monk bent on self-immolating sacrificial protest; the first two requirements still apply.

I will say that an Islamic terrorist's chances of being compromised during the planning and preparation phases are far greater in Ireland (north and south) than they are elsewhere in most of Europe, because Muslim immigrants are living within close-knit Irish communities that have, over the centuries, become aware, if not deeply suspicious, of outsiders - we are, in short, nosy feckers. I would also say that the Troubles have made us more wary of dangers and more willing to report suspicions either to the police or to other less benign authorities. Either way the chances of an Islamic terrorist conducting a successful mass murder attack are, in my view, less likely than elsewhere in the UK or Europe.

And Stones was absolutely right, the 2 Glasgow bombers were fecking dire, but it doesn't alter the fact that the first reaction of the Weegie cabbie was to run in and kick the crap out of one of them. Contrast this with the more basic and understandable instinct that the immediate aftermath videos show of crowds running away in blind panic.

That's true Serj, but I think it applies to rural areas. Since the Celtic Tiger roared (and whimpered), the "big shmoke" has become far more cosmopolitan - certainly since I was a boy, when the sight of a black tent trundling along a pavement would have every window curtain in Dublin twitching. The ethnic diversity in Dublin hasn't reached spot the pasty faced, hairy ar$ed, potato chomping Micker proportions yet, but it's headed that way. Ergo, if ISIS were planning a terrorist attack in Ireland, they'd probably select Dublin.

I wouldn't compare what happened in the North to what ISIS are currently doing on the continent and in the UK. There simply aren't enough muslims to accommodate an insurgency. The advantage the paramilitaries had in NI, was that they could meld into the background; radical muslims can't do that, certainly not in the shticks. However, it does not preclude the occasional suicide bombing, even in a smaller, more intimate environment like Dublin (or Cork).

Vengeful Glutton wrote:The ethnic diversity in Dublin hasn't reached spot the pasty faced, hairy ar$ed, potato chomping Micker proportions yet, but it's headed that way. Ergo, if ISIS were planning a terrorist attack in Ireland, they'd probably select Dublin

FFS, when were ye last in Dublin? Ye won't see many of us hairy-arsed types there unless Munster are in town or Galway are playing Tipp in the Liam. If ISIS are planning to attack Dublin, rest assured they're coming dressed as a hipster.

Not to forget, Ireland is not involved in the same cr@p as the UK and France. And attacking Ireland has very limited international "prestige".

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I was, incidentally, buying a shed

It's been a disconcerting few days but this is the most depressing thing I've heard so far.

Adder wrote:Not to forget, Ireland is not involved in the same cr@p as the UK and France. And attacking Ireland has very limited international "prestige".

http://www.shannonwatch.org/page/milita ... on-airport

onlynameleft wrote:As for the last line of your previous post I can only return the compliment.

Now, now, Fellas. Let's not conflate these issues if we can possibly avoid it.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: The playing of Reveille (Presumably following the playing of the last Post) at one of the so-called commemorations last week

Tell me you just made that up...

OptimisticJock wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote: The playing of Reveille (Presumably following the playing of the last Post) at one of the so-called commemorations last week

Tell me you just made that up...

It was audible and recognisable in one of the news clips.

Mellsblue wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I was, incidentally, buying a shed

It's been a disconcerting few days but this is the most depressing thing I've heard so far.

Actually a summer-house, but I wanted to conceal my affluence.

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:What a load of crap, surely you can do better than that, you are nothing but a radical muslim apologist, and FYI you only reply to my posts because you want to stick your pc oar in.
Go and start a candlelit vigil somewhere, that will really put the shits up the radicals.

I consider it quite an achievement to be accused of being both a western imperialist apologist as well as a radical muslim apologist...on the same forum.

Just to put you straight, I reply to your odious, hate filled little rants in the hope of you suddenly developing a sense of reason. I realise there is little chance of that happening as your views are extreme in themselves. Remember, extremism is the issue here. You have called for people to be rounded up, interned and even murdered.

I'm sure you look up to fellas like this:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown ... upremacist

Murdered two innocent people just for standing up for two young muslim girls he was using threatening behaviour against.

He uses language scarily similar to yourself.

Pfft...flat earth.

Perhaps there's a link there somewhere.

In your eyes anyone who voted for Trump is a right wing, racist, white supremacist, extremist, so is anyone who voted for Brexit, as is anyone against mass immigration, also anyone who see's islam as a threat to the world.
Thats the thing with political correctness, you are either PC or you are all of the above, you don't see any middle ground.

I have called for terrorists to be murdered, and suspects to be rounded up, through your PC eyes that means any muslim, thats your hyperbole. You would give these bad guys all the rights afforded to any citizen of Great Britain, given the chance, if they could, they would give us all the choice to convert or die, so I don't see them as worthy of such protection

You have said you need to separate the word extremism from islam you are 100% wrong, and until the government and people like you understand this we can never hope to defeat them. The radicals are slaughtering people everyday in the name of allah, what more evidence do you need than that? or do you think they just enjoy killing people and are just using islam as an excuse to do it?

This woman makes a very good point when she answers the excuse about, its only a minority of muslims that are radical, most of them are peaceful.
Brilliant, it blows all the radical apologists out of the water.

Lord Lucan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:What a load of crap, surely you can do better than that, you are nothing but a radical muslim apologist, and FYI you only reply to my posts because you want to stick your pc oar in.
Go and start a candlelit vigil somewhere, that will really put the shits up the radicals.

I consider it quite an achievement to be accused of being both a western imperialist apologist as well as a radical muslim apologist...on the same forum.

Just to put you straight, I reply to your odious, hate filled little rants in the hope of you suddenly developing a sense of reason. I realise there is little chance of that happening as your views are extreme in themselves. Remember, extremism is the issue here. You have called for people to be rounded up, interned and even murdered.

I'm sure you look up to fellas like this:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown ... upremacist

Murdered two innocent people just for standing up for two young muslim girls he was using threatening behaviour against.

He uses language scarily similar to yourself.

Pfft...flat earth.

Perhaps there's a link there somewhere.

In your eyes anyone who voted for Trump is a right wing, racist, white supremacist, extremist, so is anyone who voted for Brexit, as is anyone against mass immigration, also anyone who see's islam as a threat to the world.
Thats the thing with political correctness, you are either PC or you are all of the above, you don't see any middle ground.

I have called for terrorists to be murdered, and suspects to be rounded up, through your PC eyes that means any muslim, thats your hyperbole. You would give these bad guys all the rights afforded to any citizen of Great Britain, given the chance, if they could, they would give us all the choice to convert or die, so I don't see them as worthy of such protection

You have said you need to separate the word extremism from islam you are 100% wrong, and until the government and people like you understand this we can never hope to defeat them. The radicals are slaughtering people everyday in the name of allah, what more evidence do you need than that? or do you think they just enjoy killing people and are just using islam as an excuse to do it?

First off all, decent post, well kinda...

Let me just put you right on a few points there though:

I do not think anyone who voted for Trump is a 'right wing, racist, white supremacist, extremist'. I'm sure some of his voters tick a few of those boxes, but I'm also sure that Trump's rallying calls during the election campaign appealed to many people wanting to lay the blame for all the problems in America on Mexicans, Muslims and any other country pissing on America in terms of trade deals and agreements. The facts do no back up the claims. America, just like most other places in the world have severe socio-economic issues that contribute to crime and violence.

Brexit campaigning followed a similar line. I accept the outcome of the referendum, but I have absolutely no doubt that the leave campaign swayed many voters with promises about immigration, crime and the NHS. Apparently, it's only people coming in from other European, African and/or ME countries that use and abuse our welfare system, NHS and commit crimes. As it has turned out, those claims were baseless, complete bollocks or twisted in some way.

The middle ground which you state I'm unable to see is the fact there are many people from sections of society who have been blamed for any number of issues, but these people, by a large live in peace. This is why there has been so much opposition to Trump's proposed policies. He's attacking people based on race or religion and ignoring the issues that have always been present in the US. When it comes to gun crime and violence in general, the US is up there. Since trying to ban some Muslims from entering the country, how many US citizens have been murdered by other US citizens in cold blood? I reckon it's quite a few more than have been killed by the radicals you're so obsessed with and that probably includes victims of Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK and Europe too. The middle ground in being decent enough to offer legal counsel to the so-called suspects you're condoning should be rounded up. Where does rounding up suspects end?

I'm not denying that Islam, or any other religion doesn't have issues in the way that some sections of its followers choose to live their lives and impose their beliefs on others. It clearly does and needs to be addressed, but applying the 'solution' to all followers from certain countries isn't the way forward.

So, let me get this straight, you don't think it's possible to separate the words 'extremism' and 'Islam'?

I take it watching Paul Pogba's recent pilgrimage to Mecca had you reporting openly radical terrorism to Manchester Police? Has watching SBW fend off numerous defenders before touching down for another try or try scoring offload left you in a trembling wreck behind the sofa? These guys are Muslim. Do you think they're a phone call away from being activated?

Many millions of people are capable of following their faith in a peaceful, respectful manner.

Just to be clear, this is coming from someone who thinks that religion on the whole is a dreadful concept.

This is before US, and many western governments foreign policy in the ME is discussed. Policies that have brought death through bombing and starvation as well as massive human suffering over decades. I dunno, maybe there's some kind of cause and effect here?

Lord Lucan wrote:This woman makes a very good point when she answers the excuse about, its only a minority of muslims that are radical, most of them are peaceful.
Brilliant, it blows all the radical apologists out of the water.

Utter bollocks.

An anti-Islamic conservative journalist speaking at a US conservative conference on the Benghazi attack that left 4 Americans dead, leaves the audience in raptures are attacking Islam.

Quelle surprise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Maybe not entirely surprising after all.

The woman clearly has form when it comes to such talking points.

Lord Lucan wrote:This woman makes a very good point when she answers the excuse about, its only a minority of muslims that are radical, most of them are peaceful.
Brilliant, it blows all the radical apologists out of the water.

Er, bollocks does it. She is talking undiluted shyte.

She may estimate that 15-25% of the world's Muslims are radicalised, but there isn't a credible intelligence agency on the planet that would agree. The Muslim in the tribal territories of Pakistan who lives by Sharia may fall someway short of our Christian liberal standards, but he is not likely to strap on a suicide vest and blow himself up at Wembley. There may be many Muslims living in Wolverhampton who are appalled by the blasphemy of Charlie Hebdo and who would gladly and enthusiastically join in a banner-waving, effigy burning protest - but I'd suggest that those credible surveys that have been conducted indicate that few of these would support the indiscriminate murder of children at a pop concert. Gabriel's comments are neither epic nor brilliant; they are unsubstantiated fabrications designed to terrify the gullible and stupid and to promote a genocidal hatred of others simply because of their faith.

The UK security services estimate that there are fewer than 3000 on their Muslim extremist watchlist - this from a UK Muslim population in excess of 3 million. That is just over a tenth of a single percent and it includes everyone from those who pose an immediate and credible threat to those who perhaps knew someone who once knew Abu Hamsa - or might have been heard to suggest that Salman Rushdie was a bit of a twat (I think he probably is, by the way).

3000 is 3000 too many, but it is the few who must be targeted and not the 99.8%. Gabriel and her apologists would have us commit genocide and she, the hate-peddling wanker, should feck off with this shyte and get a fecking education - and she should take all of the witless, shyte gargling twats who regurgitate her bile with her.

Rep worthy post

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:This woman makes a very good point when she answers the excuse about, its only a minority of muslims that are radical, most of them are peaceful.
Brilliant, it blows all the radical apologists out of the water.

Er, bollocks does it. She is talking undiluted shyte.

She may estimate that 15-25% of the world's Muslims are radicalised, but there isn't a credible intelligence agency on the planet that would agree. The Muslim in the tribal territories of Pakistan who lives by Sharia may fall someway short of our Christian liberal standards, but he is not likely to strap on a suicide vest and blow himself up at Wembley. There may be many Muslims living in Wolverhampton who are appalled by the blasphemy of Charlie Hebdo and who would gladly and enthusiastically join in a banner-waving, effigy burning protest - but I'd suggest that those credible surveys that have been conducted indicate that few of these would support the indiscriminate murder of children at a pop concert. Gabriel's comments are neither epic nor brilliant; they are unsubstantiated fabrications designed to terrify the gullible and stupid and to promote a genocidal hatred of others simply because of their faith.

The UK security services estimate that there are fewer than 3000 on their Muslim extremist watchlist - this from a UK Muslim population in excess of 3 million. That is just over a tenth of a single percent and it includes everyone from those who pose an immediate and credible threat to those who perhaps knew someone who once knew Abu Hamsa - or might have been heard to suggest that Salman Rushdie was a bit of a twat (I think he probably is, by the way).

3000 is 3000 too many, but it is the few who must be targeted and not the 99.8%. Gabriel and her apologists would have us commit genocide and she, the hate-peddling wanker, should feck off with this shyte and get a fecking education - and she should take all of the witless, shyte gargling twats who regurgitate her bile with her.

I'm watching you fella! Although, infantry vs heavy reading, hmmm.

Otherwise, completely agree.

Rushdie is an opinionated twat. But that doesn't make him wrong.