For the Liberal Brigade

mr_angry

Ok Wicknight. I think you're taking dathai just a bit out of context there. The man is just saying that these groups should be treated properly under the laws we already have in this country about incitement to hatred, etc. Its clear to me that these people (not Muslims, or foreigners in general - just these people) are dangerous, and "leaving them to do there own thing" would be relatively unwise.

Zombrex

Originally posted by mr_angry
Ok Wicknight. I think you're taking dathai just a bit out of context there. The man is just saying that these groups should be treated properly under the laws we already have in this country about incitement to hatred, etc.

No one is arguing with that, and I don't think anyone is supporting this group in any way shape or form. dathai called on people to boycott the group, but as
Éomer of Rohan said it is a non-event, no need to boycott it anymore than you need to boycott the other loonies on Grafton St. If this group breaks the law, then they should be dealt with properly, just like any other group on this island.

What dathai did do though was blame multiculturalism, "la carte" immigration and the general left, for groups like this, which is what I responded to.

This is not a problem of multiculturalism

Typedef

I support multiculturalism.

I think in the Darwinian sense, multiculturalism (or rather an amalgim of cultures, in one nation), is rather like, biodiversity or even genetic diversity in a gene pool.

It would be, bad, if Ireland got mired in the past, and became, xenophobic.

Again, I don't accept that being anti-EU federalism, implies xenophobia, though, apparently according to the pros, anti-Federalists have been known to eat babies.

Jocularity aside. The very real, but, under-reported energy crisis facing petroleum based Western economies, implies that the Western world has developed an interest in the Middle East (where all the oil is), largely people in this region are Muslims.

Ergo, in order to diminsh the people in these areas, demonise them and thus make it socially acceptable to subjectgate those people (if necessary) or prop up corrupt regiemes (no comparison to Western regiemes intended in this case), it becomes necessary to paint the Muslim faith (since racism is not in vogue anymore) as a faith, which leads people to violent madness and thus, is a faith which the Wests 'crusade' against 'evil' and 'terrorism' should encompass.

Obviously this accomplishes the task of annexing Oil reserves to the benefit of the US and it's allies.

This is the same great game of Imperialism that has been played for all of human history, a few nut jobs, who happen to be Muslims, hardly justifies Western actions in the Middle East (ongoing and future).

Similarly just because it would be 'easy' and 'comforting' to believe the propaganda about the West being 'free', the realities of Western foreign policies just don't stack up with these concepts, under even the most cursory objective analysis.

In any case, people in the Middle East (ostensibly Muslim) are aggrieved by Western Imperialism and seek to redress this through violent action.

Since Ireland is not a very powerful nation (though it would be an economic disaster for Ireland to be seriously contiminated or elsewise), it is much more likely that the UK and US will be the targets of Middle Eastern violent action to redress the imbalance of power, or as some might term said action 'terrorism'.

These are the realities of the world we live in and while not pretty, I think it would be a waste of time to debate the 'merits' of the propaganda-prole feed with which the media pumps into our minds ad nausea.

This is a matter of people resisting Imperialism, people who, if they had the power, would most certainly be Imperialsts themselves, since power corrupts.

The problem with the populations of the Western World is that we have seen too many films with HollyWood endings and allow ourselves to be fooled that the world 'really' does operate this way.

Weapons of Mass Destruction my arse, nobody, who wasn't totally nieve believed 'seriously' that Iraq and any kind of WMD, since attacking it would have been much too risky for American allies in the region, notably Saudi, Kuwait and of course Israel.

To turn around and say we should not allow Muslims into Ireland, or to even skirt around saying it, is nuts.
Ireland is not a real target. Perhaps, crashing a plane into Intel's fab plant, would cause some serious worries for the world, for the six months it would take to make another, but, the notion of people targeting Ireland through Sellafield is nuts. Targeting Britain, through Sellafield is possible, but, I would think that asassination attempts against the Prime Minister and it's like are much more likely.

Killing hundreds of thousands of people would only lead to the likes of the UK and the US, deploying Nuclear Weapons.

Fielding of such weapons was seriously considered post 9/11, so most 'terrorists' with the intelligence to pull off such a stunt would be quite aware that the power bloc it attacks would most likely retaliate with Nuclear weapons.

Ergo attacks like 9/11 on civilians are likey, but, attacks against Nuclear facilities are not, more to the point.

A multicultural society is much more likely to detract from the Demonisation of 'Muslims' or group(x), due to a higher amount of tolerance to quilocialisms of other people arising from culutral diversity, leading us, in the West to be a little less likely to spew up some garbage about brining "Western Values" to the "Muslim savage" and just be bare faced about our intentions and say.

"We're going to piss all over the Middle East, because it suits our economic interests... now stop bleating about it and go join the army.... we need cannon fodder".

/

dathi1

In any case, people in the Middle East (ostensibly Muslim) are aggrieved by Western Imperialism and seek to redress this violent action.

Now this looks like a long excuse for Islamic religious fundamentalists to propagate here because they are no threat to Ireland? As I said in previous posts we don't want any part in imperialist and neo religious wars whether via Shannon with the yanks on behalf of Zionism or groups such as Algerian FIS or Al Mahajorun patronising us as to how anti imperial we are and then setting up base here. The lame excuses about our "terror" history here above, makes no excuse for new hyper world terror for Allah groups to set up here. Our walk in and claim asylum system with free legal aid is a part of the problem also. The Socialist Party member above reckons that they are a non event....In Muslim Turkey they wouldn't have a hope of leafleting the pubic. They know the consequences of such naivety expressed above.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Since Ireland is not a very powerful nation (though it would be an economic disaster for Ireland to be seriously contiminated or elsewise), it is much more likely that the UK and US will be the targets of Middle Eastern violent action to redress the imbalance of power, or as some might term said action 'terrorism'.
...
Ireland is not a real target.

What makes you think that Islamic terrorists wouldn't attack UK/US/Israeli targets inside Ireland (like they did in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and most recently Turkey)?

Typedef

Again.

I think the entire anti-Jihad rallying cry, is an easy tool, with which to demonise a section of humanity, and thus make it easy subjectgate them.

In reality, unless one incites to violence (and and prove this in a court of law) towards other people, one has comitted no crime and I think that curtailing immigration on this basis would be putting the cart before the horse.

Blithely "Jihad" this as an excuse to 'clamp down' on immigration is spurious in my opinion, since the real end to this is to end multiculturalism.

Sort of like using September 11 as an excuse to enunciate the Patriot act and then abuse that act, by putting it to use outside of the areas of terrorism aversion, cracking down an asylum seekers and immigrants to prevent "Islamic terrorists", is simply an in-vogue excuse to accomplish an end.... namely stoping the supposed "carte blanche" immigration into this country.

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh
What makes you think that Islamic terrorists wouldn't attack UK/US/Israeli targets inside Ireland (like they did in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and most recently Turkey)?

Turkey is a military allay of the US and UK and has a history of Imperialism, attacking British or American interests in Ireland, would be akin to attacking a McDonalds, in Canada. Why do that, when you can bomb Washington?

That makes no sense.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
In reality, unless one incites to violence (and and prove this in a court of law) other people, one has comitted no crime.

No, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act makes it an offence to stir up hatred against any group, even if you stop short of directly inciting violence.

Sort of like using September 11 as an excuse to enunciate the Patriot act and then abuse that act, by putting it to use outside of the areas of terrorism aversion, cracking down an asylum seekers and immigrants to prevent "Islamic terrorists", is simply an in-vogue excuse to accomplish an end.... namely stoping the supposed "carte blanche" immigration into this country.

Undoubtedly it is for some people. But that does not mean we should ignore the threat of Islamist extremism. Just because Paisley's opposition to the IRA is based on sectarian bigotry doesn't mean that we should ignore the IRA threat.

attacking British or American interests in Ireland, would be akin to attacking a McDonalds, in Canada.

Incorrect, McDonalds restaurants are locally owned franchises, whereas the US embassy in Ireland is directly controlled by the US government.

Why do that, when you can bomb Washington?

Because it's a softer target?

Typedef

Yes but, a British or American embassy in Ireland is of almost no strategic importance to an Islamic 'terrorists'. For one, Ireland has no real military importance, unlike Turkey.

Ok, by coincidence the Irish and British have a checkered past and so an attack against a Britsh embassay in Ireland would be a disaster, but, in that single instance alone, for British-Irish relations.

The attack in Turkey was also a message, to Islamic countries about the retaliation they should expect for participating with Anglo-American Imperialsm, which is again pertinent since Turkey has interests in effectively annexing the Northern part of Iraq.

In comparison, Ireland, is very low down indeed on the possible list of targets.

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Yes but, a British or American embassy in Ireland is of almost no strategic importance to an Islamic 'terrorists'. For one, Ireland has no real military importance, unlike Turkey.

But exactly like Kenya, or Tanzania

The attack in Turkey was also a message, to Islamic countries about the retaliation they should expect for participating with Anglo-American Imperialsm, which is again pertinent since Turkey has interests in effectively annexing the Northern part of Iraq.

How did Indonesia or Kenya cooperate with the US military against Islam? In any case, aren't there thousands of US soldiers passing through Shannon on their way to Iraq every month?

In comparison, Ireland, is very low down indeed on the possible list of targets.

Yes, I'm sure the Balinese were telling themselves that a few years ago...

sovtek

Originally posted by Meh
But exactly like Kenya, or TanzaniaHow did Indonesia or Kenya cooperate with the US military against Islam? In any case, aren't there thousands of US soldiers passing through Shannon on their way to Iraq every month? Yes, I'm sure the Balinese were telling themselves that a few years ago...

Kenya was more than likely convenience. They have Muslim historical connection as well as population, as with Tanzania. I wouldn't be surprised should some bombings take place in South Africa (well some small ones have already, Planet Hollywood in '98), and have expected it for years.
I guess you aren't aware of Suharto and America's long military history with Indonesia. Besides the fact that Indonesia jumped at the chance to be an "ally" in the "war on terror".
Is Ireland possibly open to attacks, maybe...but then I'm sure there are possible targets in Lichtenstein (spelling?)
On topic I'd say that this group should be considered if they are breaking the law. On the other hand it has nothing to do with immigration.

mr_angry

I think Typedef has totally altered the issue here - we're not talking about keeping out all Muslims because we're afraid of a select few. We're talking about protesting against a bunch of crazies who dirctly link themselves with terrorism, and actively support it. If you want to talk about the dehumanisation of Muslims in general, do so in another thread.

Victor

Originally posted by Redleslie
Personally I believe that the Vatican's stance on AIDS and its stupid opposition to condoms is responsible for more death, misery and authoritarian patriarchical oppression throughout the world than these islamateurs could ever dream of.

Hang on the vatican preaches celibacy before marriage, fidelity in it, the use of condoms to prevent disease, the care of the ill and poor and children .... which sounds awfully like the WHO stance.

Originally posted by Redleslie
I applaud their Salman Rushdie fatwa though.

The Vatican did not issue this.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Originally posted by mr_angry
I think Typedef has totally altered the issue here - we're not talking about keeping out all Muslims because we're afraid of a select few.

Dathi's orginal post started -

For the Liberal Brigade
Just in case you want more from "multiculturalism"

Multiculturalism causing/not-causing a rise in these extreme Muslim groups in Ireland seems to be what a lot of people are discussing.

I don't think anyone is objecting to protesting against this group .. in fact if I was in Dublin I would probably put on my Atheist hat and go along for the laugh

("So you can't eat Pork. What about Bacon? Not even Ham?")

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
No they don't. Come on Victor you are usually more accurate than this. The Vatican is one of the most ardent critics of condoms.

Whatever about the church in Kenya, the Vatican has said that it is permissable to use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The problem for the church arises when people interpret this as carte blanche to, eh, fornicate. The church does not want to reduce the threshold to a point where people think "I'm using a condom, so it's safe". People mistake safe for safer.

Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".

This may or may not be out of context. Is it "a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife - but have sex anyway" or "a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because there is a risk of transmission anyway and they should abstain from sex".

Originally posted by dathi1
www.almuk.com/obm/events.html

Yeah, Brits out of Ireland (note the mobile number is British not Irish). :rolleyes:

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Wicknight
I don't think anyone is objecting to protesting against this group .. in fact if I was in Dublin I would probably put on my Atheist hat and go along for the laugh

While I think that protesting against them is exactly what they would want us to do, the attitude of Wicknight himself exactly reflects my own; hell, in the Students Union today, the Christian Union got themselves taken apart because I was in a bad mood and their 'Officer in Charge of Evangelism' dared to try to pass me a leaflet

Redleslie

Originally posted by Victor
Hang on the vatican preaches celibacy before marriage, fidelity in it, the use of condoms to prevent disease, the care of the ill and poor and children .... which sounds awfully like the WHO stance.

Hmm, can't find any specific mention of the Vatican advocating the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. From Vatican site. "Morever, in order to coordinate better its activities the Holy See has established an Ad Hoc Committee on the fight against HIV/AIDS. The Committee intends to express particular solicitude for sub-Saharan Africa, where the suffering is most acute, and to pay special attention to the problems of stigma and discrimination accompanying the disease, to access to treatment and care, to education on responsible sexual behavior — including abstinence and marital fidelity — and to the care of HIV/AIDS orphans. With these new initiatives, the Holy See intends to strengthen further its commitment and augment its contribution to the global fight against HIV/AIDS, as it reaffirms its belief in the value and sacredness of every human life."

The church instead claims that condoms cause promiscuity which results in the spread of AIDS. They've got it completely arseways. They've also been putting out a lot of disinformation about AIDS, rubbish like the virus is small enough to pass through condoms. This kind of stupidity and ignorance is killing people by the million. It's a bit more serious than a few muslims doing a leaflet drop.

The Vatican did not issue this.

I meant the fatwa listed on that islamateur site. Should've been clearer I guess.

Typedef

Protest against religous crazies if that is your thing.

However if we are to begin discouting ethnic groups or religous groups from our country based on some fringe loonies associated with said ethnicity/group, then I suggest we begin by deporting all the Catholics and then move on to the Protestants.

In fact, you might end up with a few tens of thousands fence sitting agnostics left in the country, as us athiests tend to be a bit, entrenched in our self-righteousness.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Typedef

However if we are to begin discouting ethnic groups or religous groups from our country based on some fringe loonies associated with said ethnicity/group, then I suggest we begin by deporting all the Catholics and then move on to the Protestants.

I fundamentally agree except I think we should do the protestants first, then the catholics. So right away, we have an ideological split and another excuse to have a fight. Excellent.