kill people in Ireland, if THEY deem it necessary

chill

Well nothing knew here then... a bunch of rabid anti american inferiority complexes obsessed with their fantasy violence.

Out in the real world most Irish people understand showing respect to the representative of the American people, our friends. They also understand the image of Ireland that will be portrayed in the US right wing media elite outlets and the help to Bush that will result in November.

I hope the presidents' men pump a few rounds into ANY one who comes near him with or without a weapon and they shoudl give the guy a medal and whisk him back to the US.

I'll be out there waving a US flag and an Irish flag. Amerhas always been and remains our biggest and most valuable friend.

Villain

Originally posted by chill
I hope the presidents' men pump a few rounds into ANY one who comes near him with or without a weapon and they shoudl give the guy a medal and whisk him back to the US.

:rolleyes:

Thats a very sad remark chill.

Originally posted by chill
I'll be out there waving a US flag and an Irish flag. Amerhas always been and remains our biggest and most valuable friend.

Delighted for ya, I think Ireland should regard the US as friend, but I don't think we should regard Bush as amost valuable friend. He's an evil man, who doesn't care about the number of Soldiers being killed in Iraq, he's more interested in getting re-elected.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by chill
Out in the real world most Irish people understand showing respect to the representative of the American people, our friends.

Any chance you could back up that statement? I'd like to meet some of these Irish people in the real world.

As for your hope that some Irish get shot, well done. You're clearly not looking to get intellectual respect from the people on this forum. Of course I could be terribly wrong here.

Thanks,

Nick

scojones

i'm definately going protesting when the bastid comes here. I hate him so much, it's my duty as a red blooded irish man to show my disgust for him when he enters this country. Let the fist shaking commence :mad:

chill

As for your hope that some Irish get shot, well done.

I made no reference to any Irish people. But don't let that stop you making something up...

You're clearly not looking to get intellectual respect from the people on this forum. Of course I could be terribly wrong here.

No you're right. I know when I'm in a Lion's den. Boards is well known for it.

Villain

Originally posted by chill
I hope the presidents' men pump a few rounds into ANY one who comes near him with or without a weapon and they shoudl give the guy a medal and whisk him back to the US.

Originally posted by chill
I made no reference to any Irish people. But don't let that stop you making something up...

Does Anyone not include Irish people??? :rolleyes:

MeatProduct

Originally posted by chill

No you're right. I know when I'm in a Lion's den. Boards is well known for it.

What? You're in the lion's den now? How did that happen? I thought most of the Irish people were with you on this? Most Irish people changed their views very quickly there. Bloody fickle Irish eh? No idea what they want! Better blame boards anyway.

Nick

Sparks

Originally posted by chill
Amerhas always been and remains our biggest and most valuable friend.

Ignoring the rest of that post, I want to correct you on this point. American is not and has not been our biggest and most valuable friend. That role belongs to the EU, who poured billions of euro into this country to rebuild our infrastructure. They remain our biggest trading market and just about the only governmental group to contribute to Ireland.
Private US companies have established factories and so on here, but that's not "America"'s doing, it's a business decision made on economic grounds. We have low taxes, they come here. India has lower taxes, they leave. That's it. Our political relationship with the White House has little to do with it, by and large.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Well nothing knew here then... a bunch of rabid anti american inferiority complexes obsessed with their fantasy violence.

Insult the posters on this forum like that again, and it will be your last time.

If You have a problem with the people here then leave.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
I've seen quite a number of people on the politics forum advocate violence - by calling for the death penalty, by expressing support for democracy abolishing woman torturing dictators, by defending various military interventions/nation state wars/guerrilla campaigns (some of which have been of dubious legality and would, technically speaking, therefore involve even more mass murder than normal), and so on. So can you clarify what violence is ok please Bonkey?

Certainly. People have expressed support for or agreement with legal concepts, people in power, actions of nations etc. etc. etc. all of which involve violence when analysed from a certain level. That is perfectly ok.

However, when you start advocating personal use of violence in contradiction of the law, then it doesn't wash.

For example :
You want to peacefully protest in favour of habing the law changed in order to support the death penalty? Thats fine.
You want to recommend that someone released from prison after having served their time for manslaughter because you feel they got off easy? Thats not ok.

You can support the governments use of riot police should you wish. I may find it distasteful as a person, but I have no issue with that as a moderator.

However, should you start advocating that individuals take the law into their own hands and use violence for their own ends, then I do have a problem with it. From the simplest point of view, boards.ie could be held liable for allowing incitement to violence / incitement to hatred to be perpetrated on our forums with what would have to be considered tacit permission were the moderators to simply turn a blind eye.

Hope that answers your question?

jc

MeatProduct

Chill, why not try and cool down a little? Get your point across without insulting people and you can stay and get your opinion across. I'm all for hearing your arguments as long as you make a reasonable amount of sense.

Nick

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
Redleslie
I thought that was a pretty poor attempt at trolling.

I would like to draw your - and everyone else's - attention to two small facts :

1) The rules for the board have been updated as of Mar 23.
2) Allegations of trolling against other people will no longer be tolerated.

If you think someone is trolling, then report them or ignore it.

This may seem draconian, but the mods are fed up of this increasing trend of "you're a troll" because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

jc

Nick_oliveri

Its A Sad Fact That No-One Will Listen When Millions Of People Protest. But I Wont Be Protesting A Mass Murderers Visit To Ireland, I'll Be Protesting The Dangers That Uproot After Its Known That Our Government, Ergo WE As A Nation Approve Of His Ways And Misguided (Dont Wish To Exaggerate) Motives. Therefore We The People, No, Not Bertie Abollocks Will Suffer The Calculated-High Fatality-Bomb-Related Aftermath.And This My Friends, Is What P!sses Me Off.

"George W Bush will be armed and could open fire if they deem it is necessary to save life."

1.In Something So Stupid, Of Couse Mr. Bush's Name Will be Involved
2.If Minister For Justice Said That Around Me, I Would Kick Him In The Nuts And Somehow Graft A Cone Shaped "D" Hat To His Inhumain Cranium.
3.Oh Yes i Would
4.That Is One Of The Most Disgusting And Stupid Comments Ive Ever Heard.
5.Im Beginning To Think This Kind Of Worldwide Mentality Cannot Be Real, Therefore,in My Eyes, This Is All A Really Bad,Annoyingly Stupid Nightmare

Senor_Fudge

Originally posted by chill
I hope the presidents' men pump a few rounds into ANY one who comes near him with or without a weapon and they shoudl give the guy a medal and whisk him back to the US.

chill cop on will ya ffs :rolleyes:

bonkey

I've already warned chill for his post.

Don't think that means you - or anyone else - has a free hand in being insulting because of it.

Senor_Fudge

fair enough but i had to say something to that
chill are u irish?

Mighty_Mouse

Everyone recognises the ties between America and Ireland. (Boston , New York full of Irish, power of irish vote in America)

This idea of respecting American in everything they do "because they're our friend" is an argument I dont really understand.

Firstly Bush certainly has no ties or feelings towards Ireland and neither does Kerry by all accounts. What does being our friend mean?

We don't need allies because we are neutral. An politically , ireland is more concerned with political allies/influence etc within the European Union.

Business-wise/FDI.................americans dont come here because they're our friends .........they come here for low tax, skilled labour etc etc. Its a profit/business decision which wouldnt change if 4 million people turn up to protest.

While a healthy relationship with the most powerful country in the world is never a bad thing (mediation in the north, american technology companies etc ) I just dont see it as essential.

The point here is that the right to protest against the actions of America is something that every Irish person should feel entitled to do and nobody should hold those decisions back because of some fake notion that america is our friend!

Redleslie

Originally posted by bonkey
Certainly. People have expressed support for or agreement with legal concepts, people in power, actions of nations etc. etc. etc. all of which involve violence when analysed from a certain level. That is perfectly ok.

I agree. I was a bit confused as to how you could have a politics forum and yet avoid having posters supporting the use of violence in certain circumstances now and again.

However, when you start advocating personal use of violence in contradiction of the law, then it doesn't wash.

However, should you start advocating that individuals take the law into their own hands and use violence for their own ends, then I do have a problem with it. From the simplest point of view, boards.ie could be held liable for allowing incitement to violence / incitement to hatred to be perpetrated on our forums with what would have to be considered tacit permission were the moderators to simply turn a blind eye.

So instead of advocating personal use of violence, as long as a 3rd party is recommended to do the beating/torturing/raping/killing of one's chosen target group or individual that's ok? Like if someone said that they supported some dictator's regime for example. A quick search reveals that there are plenty of extremely tedious posts of the "exterminate knackers/scangers/criminals/hippies" sort knocking about on various boards here and they appear to occur quite regularly. As for advocating the personal use of violence (and inciting hatred?), most recently there's this pair:

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Is it too late for me to sign up for the Garda riot squad? Can't think of a better way to spend a weekend than baton charge a bunch of violent anarchists/commies/students.

Originally posted by Nick_oliveri
If Minister For Justice Said That Around Me, I Would Kick Him In The Nuts And Somehow Graft A Cone Shaped "D" Hat To His Inhumain Cranium.

So what's the story there?

I'm not defending Senor_Fudge's daft and quite possibly racist chuck a random yank in the river comment. Just wondering where the boundaries are, since there's nothing in the rules about what kind of violence can be acceptably condoned. For example, the Iraq war and the assassination of the Hamas bloke were (allegedly) illegal but people are able to say they agree with these types of actions and I think they have reasonably good reasons for doing so. So is a broader discussion about the pros and cons of illegal use of violence possible at all? There's some interesting international legal interpretations of what constitutes incitement here.

A black anti-war activist declared in a public speech: "If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ [then-President Lyndon B Johnson]. They are not going to make me kill my black brothers." He was convicted of threatening to kill the President. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the circumstances showed that the speaker did not intend to make a "true threat" but rather to state his political opposition to the President, albeit in a "very crude, offensive" manner. The Court relied, in particular, on the fact that the threat was conditional, and that the audience responded with laughter.

Hope that answers your question?

It was of some help yes thanks. I just realised that the GB Shaw quote in my sig could be said to be advocating violence. Bold.

pork99

Originally posted by chill
I hope the presidents' men pump a few rounds into ANY one who comes near him with or without a weapon and they shoudl give the guy a medal and whisk him back to the US.

An armed soldier on duty in peacetime in the Irish Defence forces is legally alllowed to use lethal force in the following circumstances;

1 - In defence of his own life

2 - In defence of a comrades life

3 - To prevent himself being forcibly disarmed

4 - In defence of his post

5 - To prevent damage to government property

I assume this also applies to armed Gardai

Now even if US security personel are allowed to use the same rules of engagement here I don't see any condition which allows use of lethal force to defend dopey draft dodgers

But seriousely remember a few years when some nutter in Australia or New Zealand ran at Prince Charles with an air pistol? The first thing his bodyaguard did was to put himself between Charles and the assailant. Then the attacker was leapt on by about 20 other guards & cops. Not shot. Same with the Reagan assasination attempt in 1981. First reaction is to cover and move to safety the object of the attack. Next step is to capture or disable the attacker. I'm not an expert on this, its just an observation based on what I've seen in news coverage.

So these fears about US security people mowing down protestors = fantasy.

Any risk of a massacre here comes from the lads in al Quaeda chosing to make an example of us like they did to the Spaniards in Madrid. I hope thats a remote possibility.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by pork99
An armed soldier on duty in peacetime in the Irish Defence forces is legally alllowed to use lethal force in the following circumstances;
....
5 - To prevent damage to government property

Nice to see that property is more important than human life.

Nick

pork99

I don't know if that one still applies

It's nearly 20 years since I was given a rifle and 100 round of ball cartridge to go out and do my patriotic chores.

But those 5 points are the ones we had to learn by heart before going out on the streets with live ammo

Turkey

Pork, I think you have bent the OSA [such that it is]about as far as you can here.

Ailill

Originally posted by chill
Well nothing knew here then... a bunch of rabid anti american inferiority complexes obsessed with their fantasy violence.

Out in the real world most Irish people understand showing respect to the representative of the American people, our friends. They also understand the image of Ireland that will be portrayed in the US right wing media elite outlets and the help to Bush that will result in November.

I hope the presidents' men pump a few rounds into ANY one who comes near him with or without a weapon and they shoudl give the guy a medal and whisk him back to the US.

I'll be out there waving a US flag and an Irish flag. Amerhas always been and remains our biggest and most valuable friend.

My thoughts exactly. Anyone trying to harm the person of the POTUS on Irish soil should be shot. America is our greatest friend in the world and I too will be out with my American flag showing my respect and affection for our friends in the US.

Turkey

I think all this talk of blood letting has gone far enough!
It doesent matter if it is that prise go******e g.w. bush or some tart from Leeson street, everybody is entitled to the protection of the law, even to an extent, criminals, but members of the US SS will be on hand while bush is here and they will be entitled to engage would be murderers, under rules of engagement similiar to those mentioned above. and they may be answerable in a court of law afterwards as may our Garda and DF. That is the protection criminals are entitled to under our law.
It is all a matter of cause and effect, if people had not killed 4 american presidents over the years then there would be no need for a protection detail for him.
If this scabby unwashed filth was not importing itself into this country for mayday there would be no need for 500 of our troops for riot drill.
If so called peace scum had not attacked aircrafts, legally entitled, to be in Shannon, then highly trained, armed troops would not have been needed to secure the perimeter of the airport.
If you are scared that there will be an armed presence during the bush visit then you obviously have ill intent, mayby it would be better if you stayed away.
Mind you, with a 12 hour sheduled stopover, I do not think there is going to be any walkabouts, or meet-and-greets, so it is possable that you are all raising your blood pressure to dangerous levels for nothing.

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
If this scabby unwashed filth was not importing itself into this country for mayday there would be no need for 500 of our troops for riot drill.
If so called peace scum had not attacked aircrafts, legally entitled, to be in Shannon, then highly trained, armed troops would not have been needed to secure the perimeter of the airport.

Neither of those statements is correct, as the "scabby unwashed filth" have not been shown to exist, so the riot drill could be attributed to paranoia more accurately; and had Bertie acted in accordance with over fifty years of precendent (as showin in Horgan v. State) and refused overflight and landing rights as every other neutral EU country did, we wouldn't have seen the "peace scum" "attacking aircraft".
And that's not even mentioning the rather extreme bias on your choice of language....

pork99

Originally posted by Turkey
Pork, I think you have bent the OSA [such that it is]about as far as you can here.

I think I've said enough, special operations, Official Secrets Act and all that

Suffice to say being a postman was a dangerous job back then

monument

Originally posted by Turkey
everybody is entitled to the protection of the law

Maybe the people innocent that the US have shot/bombed/etc are entitled to that protection?

Originally posted by Turkey
and they may be answerable in a court of law afterwards

Like how the people who brake international law answerable in a court of law afterwards?

Originally posted by Turkey
If you are scared that there will be an armed presence during the bush visit then you obviously have ill intent, mayby it would be better if you stayed away.

By that... old woman who are scared to walk the city streets obviously have ill intent, maybe it'd be better if they stayed off the streets?

Originally posted by Turkey
Mind you, with a 12 hour sheduled stopover, I do not think there is going to be any walkabouts, or meet-and-greets, so it is possible that you are all raising your blood pressure to dangerous levels for nothing.

Nearly anything is possible.

Turkey

I knew someone from Greystones would bring up Horgan V state, again, and omit to mention, again, that it was turned over by the supreme court.
Not that it matters anyway, the 50 years of preceedent was followed, aircrafts of the US forces continued landing in Ireland as they had since the '30's.
Monument , we are not answerable for what happens outside the state, and your old woman reference makes no sense at all.[perhaps you could explain it a bit better].
Pork, as far as I can remember that infomation is/was not ment to be in the public domain, I am sure you were told that too.

Jam

America is our greatest friend

I'm curious about this, can you give a few examples of the recent American government directly giving us (the state) money or aid? Not American businesses, as others have mentioned. Even better would be an example from Bush's first/second year, I'd imagine the chance of it being vote grabbing is quite low in that period...

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
I knew someone from Greystones would bring up Horgan V state, again, and omit to mention, again, that it was turned over by the supreme court.

When exactly was HvS overturned? So far as I was aware, Horgan never took it to the Supreme Court, and the Government didn't want to.

Besides which, the 50 years of precedence was established and acknowleged in the case - neither side was contesting it because it wasn't the focus of the case, merely a piece of evidence in it.

Not that it matters anyway, the 50 years of preceedent was followed, aircrafts of the US forces continued landing in Ireland as they had since the '30's.

Sorry Turkey, but the whole point here is that the permissions granted to the USAF this time round were not in accordance with the past 50 years of precendence, and again, both sides of HvS accepted this.