Romanians Victims of Racist Attacks

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

It is possible to be both.

Eh yes obviously

djpbarry

opo wrote: »

Were you ever burned out of your home In Belfast as his family were?

You got that from an anonymous blog?

opo

djpbarry wrote: »

You got that from an anonymous blog?

Is it written somewhere else too?

Nodin

opo wrote: »

Were you trying to figure out the quote button or something?

Oh, I don't dance to your tune so less of the imperious prig.

A number of others have been asking you to source your attempts at justification from the get go...whats your excuse there?

opo

Nodin wrote: »

A number of others have been asking you to source your attempts at justification from the get go...whats your excuse there?

What are you talking about now?

Hugocelt

Don't be so quick to think this only happens in the north or other places. We in the south were not shinning lights when the Roma camped on the M50 roundabout. Our official response was very similar to the official response in the North...send them home. We are not so good here ourselves and before we start slagging other places off for being mobs etc. we need to take a closer look at our own attitudes and responses.

Hugocelt

Hugocelt wrote: »

Don't be so quick to think this only happens in the north or other places. We in the south were not shinning lights when the Roma camped on the M50 roundabout. Our official response was very similar to the official response in the North...send them home. We are not so good here ourselves and before we start slagging other places off for being mobs etc. we need to take a closer look at our own attitudes and responses.

What on earth should anyone do when people are camping on roundabouts in a foreign country and not letting their kids into schools? Of course they should have been sent home. Christ, you don't have to be a walkover bleedingheart liberal to avoid being a vandalising thug.

Nodin

opo wrote: »

What are you talking about now?

You've been implying various misdeeds on the part of the victims in order to justify the attacks. You've failed to produce any credible source for any of them whatsoever. Whats your excuse?

opo

Nodin wrote: »

You've been implying various misdeeds on the part of the victims in order to justify the attacks. You've failed to produce any credible source for any of them whatsoever. Whats your excuse?

I never justified the attacks. Don't dare suggest I did.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

I never justified the attacks. Don't dare suggest I did.

Your entire focus has been on trying to get information on the "victims"[sic]. The reasonable inference, particularly in the light of some of your general points about the Roma, is that you think there might be something about those attacked that has a bearing on the wrongness of the attacks.

You are implying the existence a justification for the attacks.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your entire focus has been on trying to get information on the "victims"[sic]. The reasonable inference, particularly in the light of some of your general points about the Roma, is that you think there might be something about those attacked that has a bearing on the wrongness of the attacks.

You are implying the existence a justification for the attacks.

What I am sick to the back teeth of repeating in twenty different ways is that there was in all probability a history preceding the attack that has been glossed over.

I posted a link to a blog that describes what I strongly suspect is that missing history.

My point is not to issue carte blanche to the attackers. My point is to probe that history and question why it has been swept aside in favour of sensationalism. I have also found myself astonished at the sheer levels of bile directed at myself by those less than comfortable with the lazy consensus they would prefer.

Do you accept there is most likely a history or are you happier not knowing.

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2009/06/pogrom-that-wasnt.html

wes

opo wrote: »

In my attempt to find (google) the answers, I did come across this today:

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2009/06/pogrom-that-wasnt.html

The chap may be right or wrong, but he is from there and I suspect has a better handle on the situation than anything I have seen in the media.

Its a blogspot blog, anyone can set those things up, feck even I have one. Its hardly a credible source.

The blogger doesn't even link to a single credible source to back up his claims. Why should I believe him?!? He bangs on about the socialists, the PC brigade and the same crap that we have seen in this thread. Again, no proof what so ever is provided to back up there claims. Basically, I am too believe the entirety of the media are liars, but let say what he is saying is true, why the hell did no one go to the police if the Roma were engaged in criminal activity? Its seem unlikely that no one did.

opo

wes wrote: »

Its a blogspot blog, anyone can set those things up, feck even I have one. Its hardly a credible source.

The blogger doesn't even link to a single credible source to back up his claims. Why should I believe him?!? He bangs on about the socialists, the PC brigade and the same crap that we have seen in this thread. Again, no proof what so ever is provided to back up there claims. Basically, I am too believe the entirety of the media are liars, but let say what he is saying is true, why the hell did no one go to the police if the Roma were engaged in criminal activity? Its seem unlikely that no one did.

I really don’t think it would make sense for me to fight this person’s corner as he (I will assume he for brevity) appears quite coherent, moreover, I note he has a comments section and actively invites both comments and emails.

Therefore, I think the fairest thing to do is make your obvious concerns known there. If not, I will post a link back for the person concerned should he wish to elaborate to your satisfaction here.

I think you and your fellow travellers should waste no time – you know; sort him out – tell him a few home truths, and I would be only too delighted to observe your collective or individual, razor sharp demolition of his article and his person.

P. Breathnach

opo wrote: »

What I am sick to the back teeth of repeating in twenty different ways is that there was in all probability a history preceding the attack that has been glossed over.

Probability? Let's not overstate things. Of course there is a possibility that relations between the Roma and their neighbours were not good, and of course there is a possibility that the Roma contributed to bad relationships.

I posted a link to a blog that describes what I strongly suspect is that missing history.

I followed the link the first time you posted it. It's an uncorroborated solo effort, not much use as evidence.

My point is not to issue carte blanche to the attackers. My point is to probe that history and question why it has been swept aside in favour of sensationalism. I have also found myself astonished at the sheer levels of bile directed at myself by those less than comfortable with the lazy consensus they would prefer.

In focusing solely on the Roma, you manage to imply that they might have made themselves targets by their actions. It might or might not be true that their behaviour was socially undesirable (and I acknowledged earlier in this discussion that I know nothing about them, either good or bad). But, however they behaved, attacking their homes was not the way to deal with it. For some reason, you choose to avoid saying or acknowledging that.

Do you accept there is most likely a history or are you happier not knowing.

I accept that there is possibly a history. And I still say that attacking their homes was wrong. Do you?

wes

opo wrote: »

I really don’t think it would make sense for me to fight this person’s corner as he (I will assume he for brevity) appears quite coherent, moreover, I note he has a comments section and actively invites both comments and emails.

It is still some random blog that anyone can set up. Having a comments section doesn't change a blessed thing either. Plenty of dodgy as hell sites have them.

opo wrote: »

Therefore, I think the fairest thing to do is make your obvious concerns known there. If not, I will post a link back for the person concerned should he wish to elaborate to your satisfaction here.

I have better things to do that questioning some random blogger on the Internet.

opo wrote: »

I think you and your fellow travellers should waste no time – you know; sort him out – tell him a few home truths, and I would be only too delighted to observe your collective or individual, razor sharp demolition of his article and his person.

Why should I bother? Its some random blog, that doesn't bother to source a single thing. No links or anything to back up his information. Nothing to say how this information was acquired. You basically asking me to take the word of a single blogger, who basically bangs on with the some old tripe as we have already seen in thread. Why would I waste my time with his blog? Honestly, you are taking the piss.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In focusing solely on the Roma, you manage to imply that they might have made themselves targets by their actions. It might or might not be true that their behaviour was socially undesirable (and I acknowledged earlier in this discussion that I know nothing about them, either good or bad). But, however they behaved, attacking their homes was not the way to deal with it. For some reason, you choose to avoid saying or acknowledging that.

I focused on the one area that was left unfocused by the media. There was no other area I questioned.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I accept that there is possibly a history. And I still say that attacking their homes was wrong. Do you?

And again we are back to the brainless witchhunt that is beside the point I have made twenty times. Your undying conviction that I believe their homes should have been attacked and your desperation to let everyone know your own views.

oscarBravo

opo wrote: »

And again we are back to the brainless witchhunt that is beside the point I have made twenty times. Your undying conviction that I believe their homes should have been attacked and your desperation to let everyone know your own views.

Methinks the opo doth protest too much. If you don't think they should have been attacked, it would be incredibly simple to just say so.

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Methinks the opo doth protest too much. If you don't think they should have been attacked, it would be incredibly simple to just say so.

I tell you what, I will meet you half way.

Start a thread on whether I personally condone the attacks or not because as far as I am concerned, it is both off topic and personally offensive and I am done repeating myself.

If all the Moderators let it stand and deem this kind of posting appropriate and desirable on boards, I will give you a definitive answer there in due course.

oscarBravo

Nah, that's fine. When someone goes to extreme lengths to avoid answering a question, it's usually obvious what the answer is.

Abaddon

Opo has clearly and unequivocally said they don't condone the attacks. Then Opo asked a question, as there are two sides to every story and she, like the rest of you, have only heard one. Why are the rest of you so determined not to hear the other side? You are quite prepared to simply accept what the media tells you? That's not smart, and it's not healthy....

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nah, that's fine. When someone goes to extreme lengths to avoid answering a question, it's usually obvious what the answer is.

Really?

I don't think you have the bottle to start the thread.

wes

Abaddon wrote: »

Opo has clearly and unequivocally said they don't condone the attacks. Then Opo asked a question, as there are two sides to every story and she, like the rest of you, have only heard one. Why are the rest of you so determined not to hear the other side? You are quite prepared to simply accept what the media tells you? That's not smart, and it's not healthy....

I am more than willing to listen to the other side, but a random blog is about a 1000 times less thrust worthy than the media. So far the other side, is one single random blog. It would be hardly be healthy to accept things said on random Internet sites no is it? Should I take the flat earth theory serious, because the flat earth society has a web page?!?

Abaddon

Why not? You accept the media reports as true, when you insist that Opo prove to the contrary. From what I heard, much of what is in that blog is correct. Guys smoking outside the pub taunted the marchers. No-one in the area wanted the Roma there. a glass was dropped, it just fell on the ground, and....well, you've read the media reports. It'll be interesting to see what comes out during the trial of the 2 teenagers they've charged, but a colleague from that area has told me a whole nuther story from the one I read in the papers, and it wasn't all too far from what i read in that dude's blog...

netron

opo wrote: »

In my attempt to find (google) the answers, I did come across this today:

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2009/06/pogrom-that-wasnt.html

The chap may be right or wrong, but he is from there and I suspect has a better handle on the situation than anything I have seen in the media.

i would tend to believe what that guy has written - has everyone forgotten the Italian State of Emergency declared in mid 2008?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2459968/Italy-declares-state-of-emergency-over-Roma-immigrants.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492802/Savage-murder-brought-backlash-Italys-migrants--laws-expel-them.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/02/italy.international

I dont know what the solution is , but its apparent that whatever European social policy is being implemented at the moment is clearly not working.

More importantly - i'd like to know how in gods name did the Roma end up in Belfast of all places?

netron

wes wrote: »

I am more than willing to listen to the other side, but a random blog is about a 1000 times less thrust worthy than the media. So far the other side, is one single random blog. It would be hardly be healthy to accept things said on random Internet sites no is it? Should I take the flat earth theory serious, because the flat earth society has a web page?!?

A 1000 times less trust worthy than the likes of the BBC who have insisted on using the word "Romanian" in all of their tv news reports?

You've got to be kidding - mainstream media has agendas to push as much as any blogger.

netron

bluewolf wrote: »

Cheers, all the newspapers I've read on it have been saying romanian
I'm starting to wonder if they themselves know the difference

they're doing it on purpose.
its bloody obvious they are.

from watching BBC coverage there is clearly an agenda or directive of "dont mention the Roma" - well in tv news coverage at least.

sceptre

opo wrote: »

Really?

I don't think you have the bottle to start the thread.

It's rather politer if people don't accuse others of "not having the bottle". Personal attacks are rather the opposite of the environment this forum should have so watch that line you're dancing along

Also, more that it's not particularly interesting to people who aren't you and isn't worthy of a thread of its own, at least not in this universe. Other people use the forum too. You can post on this thread if you stay on topic though, but only if (complaints or comments about this instruction may be sent to me by PM or put on the help desk, not in this thread).

Red Sleeping Beauty

Racism thrives during economic lulls . As does right wing politics. Or at least more "radical" politics.

Pretty lousy thing that's happened but I don't know how "surprised" we should be. The scale of the result of the attcks is surprising though.

Northern Ireland seems to be a bit of a pressure cooker if the recent events of the last few months are anything to go by.

sceptre

netron wrote: »

A 1000 times less trust worthy than the likes of the BBC who have insisted on using the word "Romanian" in all of their tv news reports?

You've got to be kidding - mainstream media has agendas to push as much as any blogger.

I once watched BBC News 24 refer to the "mythical river Ganges" every hour for eight hours before I snapped and reminded them by email that they were mystically showing video footage of the myth every time. You may be ascribing to malice that which can be explained by stupidity but the long discussion on that probably belongs in the News/Media forum. In any event, concluding that there must be an agenda isn't a definite conclusion when there's an alternative (the guy who writes the news and doesn't know the difference between Roma, Romanian and Romanii or where these descriptions have intersections). Malice and stupidity rarely intersect, even if their results can be similar.

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Racism thrives during economic lulls . As does right wing politics.

The hard left and the hard right thrive, though only rarely do either actually replace the mainstream. They usually just get enough protest votes for the national equivalent of a few MEPs, Councillors and perhaps a TD. It depends of course on how deep and long the lull is of course.