Suppression of free speech in Galway, Ireland

dlofnep

My name is Mud wrote: »

Let me get this straight...

If I dont buy avocados, Iran will stop supplying weapons to Hizbollah and Hamas?

I do like avocados though.

It's not about supplying weapons - It's about demonstrating that you disagree with their foreign policies, and are willing to impact on their economy to administer it.

Israel is responsible for digusting abuses of human rights - Why shouldn't they be boycotted?

prinz

Gaza's ruling Islamist movement Hamas has resisted suggestions that Palestinian children should be taught about the Holocaust in UN-run schools.
The head of its education committee in Gaza, Abdul Rahman el-Jamal, told the BBC that the Holocaust was a "big lie".
He said that to teach it would be to "grant a big favour" to Israel, which has been fighting Hamas for years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8230483.stm

I wonder what Tommy would say about this... now why shouldn't who be boycotted? I think the big favour he talks about is that the indoctrinated kids he straps dynamite to, and sends walking off down the road to the nearest check point, would think twice about doing it, while he sits in a nice comfy office talking crap safe and sound.

My name is Mud

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not about supplying weapons - It's about demonstrating that you disagree with their foreign policies, and are willing to impact on their economy to administer it.

Israel is responsible for digusting abuses of human rights - Why shouldn't they be boycotted?

Well my friend, it is about the supply of weapons.

I disagree with Iran's foreign policy, which funnily enough, none of the "Friends of Palestine" care to mention

Nodin

My name is Mud wrote: »

Well my friend, it is about the supply of weapons.

I disagree with Iran's foreign policy, which funnily enough, none of the "Friends of Palestine" care to mention

And what, might I ask, has Iran to do with this?

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8230483.stm

I wonder what Tommy would say about this... now why shouldn't who be boycotted? I think the big favour he talks about is that the indoctrinated kids he straps dynamite to, and sends walking off down the road to the nearest check point, would think twice about doing it, while he sits in a nice comfy office talking crap safe and sound.

So what you're saying is that because Hamas are a shower of gobshites, its ok for Israel to colonise the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, while collectively punishing the population of Gaza?

My name is Mud

Nodin wrote: »

And what, might I ask, has Iran to do with this?

What an odd thing to say on a politics board.

Iran wishes for the destruction of the state of Israel. They make no quams about it. And they also supply weapons to any crazy fundamentalist group who shares the same ideal - Hizbollah, Hamas etc.

wes

My name is Mud wrote: »

What an odd thing to say on a politics board.

Iran wishes for the destruction of the state of Israel. They make no quams about it. And they also supply weapons to any crazy fundamentalist group who shares the same ideal - Hizbollah, Hamas etc.

The US supplies weapons to a country founded on the principle that God gave them the land. You see everyone can play at whataboutery!!!

Nodin

My name is Mud wrote: »

What an odd thing to say on a politics board.

Iran wishes for the destruction of the state of Israel. They make no quams about it. And they also supply weapons to any crazy fundamentalist group who shares the same ideal - Hizbollah, Hamas etc.

And that means its ok to blockade Gaza, colonise etc...? What exactly?

wes

lugha wrote: »

What about regimes that seek to annihilate another state?

You mean Iran? No one is stopping you from boycotting them if you so choose. I will also point out that the Israeli's politicians have made plenty of threats against Palestinians, and are making every effort to prevent Palestinian from having a state. So I take it you are against what Israel is doing as well then?

It should be pointed out that Iran is currently on the receiving end of sanctions for violating the the NPT, of course, I am sure you already know that.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

So what you're saying is that because Hamas are a shower of gobshites, its ok for Israel to colomise the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, while collectively punishing the population of Gaza?

No. Actually personally I do indulge in a bit of Israel boycotting myself, not too pushed, but I tend to avoid fruit especially when it's listed as Israel as country of origin. I am against ( an opinion shared with a large percentage of the Israeli population ) illegal settlements and further colonisation. What I am also against is one sided crusades by ignorant fools, as evidenced on the original video, distinctly hear something muttered about the "f***ing Jews" coming across there. As for Israeli gains in the '67 war. Debatable. They were attacked by a coalition of forces against them, they fought for survival, and they gained a bit of land. That was the choice of those countries which attacked Israel. You may notice who governs the Sinai now..

My name is Mud

Nodin wrote: »

And that means its ok to blockade Gaza, colonise etc...? What exactly?

Im not defending Israels foreign policy.

My point is all the anti-Israeli supporters consistently refuse to concede that Iran has a major part in all this. That includes the Friends of Palestine group.

lugha

wes wrote: »

You mean Iran?

Actually I meant Hamas.

wes

lugha wrote: »

Actually I meant Hamas.

Ok, there is already a blockade against Gaza and movement of goods is severely restricted in the West Bank as well. So what exactly do you intend to boycott then?

Also, I take it you support a boycott against Israel? Right? Israel is very much against a Palestinian state, and is actively ensuring one is never created. So we should boycott Israel for pulling the same crap as Hamas right?

FlutterinBantam

Young Guard did a great job there.

These people who latch on to "causes" and spout their rhetoric in public places should rightly be taken to task when refusing to comply with a Garda request.

You see too many bleeding hearts out there, "supporting" causes they know nothing about but depending on this state for subsistance.

Time for the flags and banners punters get a bit of sense and realise that there are two sides to every story.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Israel is very much against a Palestinian state, and is actively ensuring one is never created. So we should boycott Israel for pulling the same crap as Hamas right?

Israel has numerous times offered concessions, land for peace deals, agreements to a two state solution etc., all of which have been refused, ignored, rejected and repudiated. .

You know the way the GFA is sometimes called 'Sunningdale for slow learners'.... any future Palestinian state will be founded on the same principle. Also there are many on the other side who are also very much against a "Palestinian state", it suits a politcal agenda in many Arab countries to ensure no Palestinian state emerges.

Nodin

My name is Mud wrote: »

Im not defending Israels foreign policy.

My point is all the anti-Israeli supporters consistently refuse to concede that Iran has a major part in all this. .

Iran has a part in this now. However, the settlements predate Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the current Islamic regime in Iran. Their increase has been a constant, despite changing regimes and groups.

Prinz wrote:

Israel has numerous times offered concessions, land for peace deals, agreements to a two state solution etc..

So we're often told. Yet they keep building settlements....Funny that. And indeed why should they stop? The Palestinian "military" efforts are entirely ineffective, and the US protects them from sanctions.

nuac

Good post Flutter in Bantam.

There seem to be a lot of selective protestors about.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Israel has numerous times offered concessions, land for peace deals, agreements to a two state solution etc., all of which have been refused, ignored, rejected and repudiated. .

They have? Really? Care to show me the text of these "offers"? Oh and make sure there form a reputable 3rd party source, and not just the Israeli's saying they made a great offer.

Also, please explain to me why there are half a million colonists in the West Bank? Also, why colonization sped up during the whole Oslo business? Are these examples of peaceful intentions?

prinz wrote: »

You know the way the GFA is sometimes called 'Sunningdale for slow learners'.... any future Palestinian state will be founded on the same principle. Also there are many on the other side who are also very much against a "Palestinian state", it suits a politcal agenda in many Arab countries to ensure no Palestinian state emerges.

Are there any Arab state that have a official policy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state? Any Arab state actively engage in activity to directly stop such a state from happening? I don't doubt that they use the Palestinian cause for there own ends, but I somehow doubt there actively trying to prevent one.

Now, Israel on the other hand has half a million colonists in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Sounds to me that Israels actions speak louder than words.

Also, the 2 state solution and GFA, are 2 very different solutions.

prinz

wes wrote: »

They have? Really? Care to show me the text of these "offers"? Oh and make sure there form a reputable 3rd party source, and not just the Israeli's saying they made a great offer.

It's called research, go do some. I suggest you start with the Peel Commission...

wes wrote: »

Are there any Arab state that have a official policy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state? Any Arab state actively engage in activity to directly stop such a state from happening? I don't doubt that they use the Palestinian cause for there own ends, but I somehow doubt there actively trying to prevent one.

Does the Israeli state have an official policy to prevent it? You may also note that of the original British Mandate of Palestine.. when the British pulled out, Egypt and Jordan made the first land grabs, turns out they didn't much care for the rights of "palestinians" either. Do you think they'd also hand that land back?

prinz

wes wrote: »

Also, the 2 state solution and GFA, are 2 very different solutions.

...... did I say they were similar solutions? Why do I bother.

kmick

prinz wrote: »

(b) Taking a picture of someone walking down the street, i.e. bystanders at a monument etc is not comparable to making a video with picture and audio of a specific member of the public dealing with a garda. "a reasonable expectation of privacy" are the key words. I'm talking to a friend and some lula sticks a microphone on our table in a restaurant, and says don't mind me I'm within my rights Well I'm perfectly within my rights under Irish and international law to tell him to f*** off and get that camera/microphone/video out of my face, and have a garda enforce my wishes if I so choose.

I never said it was. You said there is a specific law against taking pictures in public I argued there is no such law. That is all I said. Its pointless arguing with you when you consistently come up with such ridiculous scenarios above.

prinz

kmick wrote: »

I never said it was. You said there is a specific law against taking pictures in public I argued there is no such law. That is all I said. Its pointless arguing with you when you consistently come up with such ridiculous scenarios above.

No more ridiculous as someone taping a conversation between a member of the public and a member of the gardaí. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy, which dear old Tommy there, repeatedly, despite requests and warnings, infringed upon.

FlutterinBantam

Poor Tommy had all the paraphenelia for a broadcast ready it would appear.


Seems like any auld cause like "Free the cosmic seven" will get support from the unemployed educated intelligentsia in the hope that the profile will gain them credence in later years.

wes

prinz wrote: »

It's called research, go do some. I suggest you start with the Peel Commission...

So you can't back up your claims. Can't say I am surprised.

Also, seeing as the state of Israel didn't exists in 1937 (when the Peel commission was being done), how exactly could they have offered peace then? Honestly, do you know what your talking about? Also, why would the indigenous people accept colonization by European Zionists, at this point in time. Most people tend to think 2000 years old land claims are bit ridiculous and they rightly viewed Zionism as a colonial movement.

prinz wrote: »

Does the Israeli state have an official policy to prevent it?

Yeah, the colonization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, is the policy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. You see Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, is where the Palestinians state is supposed to be created. Now if East Jerusalem and the West Bank are colonized, how exactly are the Palestinians suppose to create a state?!? A giant prison like Gaza and a few Bantustans dotted around the West Bank, would hardly be a viable state.

So, yes they do have such a policy. The Guardian has a nice map detailing the colonization, that you can see here:

Israeli settlements: a new reality, brick by brick

prinz wrote: »

You may also note that of the original British Mandate of Palestine.. when the British pulled out, Egypt and Jordan made the first land grabs, turns out they didn't much care for the rights of "palestinians" either. Do you think they'd also hand that land back?

You mean the mandate that was split? Um, the people living there own that land, so they didn't take anything.

If you mean after the 1948 war, well then what your saying is irrelevant, as they don't hold that land anymore. Also, there actions don't excuses Israel's in anyway shape or form to put it simply.

Now what the actions of other countries has to do with anything I say, is beyond me. Instead of addressing my points you have chosen to ignore them, and have chosen the whataboutery route of argument. You have managed to not address anything about the colonies, which is the main thrust of my argument concerning your claims of Israels 'attempts" at wanting peace.

wes

prinz wrote: »

...... did I say they were similar solutions? Why do I bother.

You were mentioning it in the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict and I was pointing out that they are 2 very different solutions, and as such the situations for both to be achieved would have to be different. Trying to apply the GFA, to a different situation makes no sense to put it simply.

FlutterinBantam

How's about trying to keep the thread on topic?:D

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

How's about trying to keep the thread on topic?:D

Apologies, my bad. I'll leave it alone now.

lugha

wes wrote: »

Ok, there is already a blockade against Gaza and movement of goods is severely restricted in the West Bank as well. So what exactly do you intend to boycott then?

Also, I take it you support a boycott against Israel? Right? Israel is very much against a Palestinian state, and is actively ensuring one is never created. So we should boycott Israel for pulling the same crap as Hamas right?

I am no defender of Israel. Their wrongs are regularly and rightly catalogued. My beef is with the fact that a substantial proportion of Irish people line up on the Palestinian side and seem to regard them as alter boys. They ignore or downplay any missile attacks on Israel civilians. They ignore the fact that Hamas (with a popular mandate) has as one of its aims, the destruction of Israel. They react with outrage to a suggestion that Hamas might deploy civilians as human shields but readily accept without question allegations that the Israelis deliberately target civilians. Again I accept that Israel has a wrap sheet every bit as shameful, indeed far worse, in part due to their superior fire power. But to reduce the problem to simple black and white terms and pile in exclusively on one side in daft. We had the “advantage” of observing the problem and the resolution of Northern Ireland at close quarters in recent years. And if nothing else was learnt, it should have been clear that these kind of problems are far from simple.

wes

lugha wrote: »

I am no defender of Israel. Their wrongs are regularly and rightly catalogued. My beef is with the fact that a substantial proportion of Irish people line up on the Palestinian side and seem to regard them as alter boys. They ignore or downplay any missile attacks on Israel civilians. They ignore the fact that Hamas (with a popular mandate) has as one of its aims, the destruction of Israel. They react with outrage to a suggestion that Hamas might deploy civilians as human shields but readily accept without question allegations that the Israelis deliberately target civilians. Again I accept that Israel has a wrap sheet every bit as shameful, indeed far worse, in part due to their superior fire power. But to reduce the problem to simple black and white terms and pile in exclusively on one side in daft. We had the “advantage” of observing the problem and the resolution of Northern Ireland at close quarters in recent years. And if nothing else was learnt, it should have been clear that these kind of problems are far from simple.

Going to pm you, so as not to further derail the thread.

prinz

wes wrote: »

So you can't back up your claims. Can't say I am surprised.

What I am saying is that I'm not really bothered doing it.

wes wrote: »

Also, seeing as the state of Israel didn't exists in 1937 (when the Peel commission was being done), how exactly could they have offered peace then? Honestly, do you know what your talking about?

The Zionists of the time were willing to accept an area roughly one fifth the size of modern Israel... this was rejected in the Middle East. Try also the UN Partition Plan in Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947... etc etc...

wes wrote: »

Also, why would the indigenous people accept colonization by European Zionists, at this point in time. Most people tend to think 2000 years old land claims are bit ridiculous and they right views Zionism as a colonial movement.

wes wrote: »

Yeah, the colonization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, is the policy to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. You see Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, is where the Palestinians state is supposed to be created. Now if East Jerusalem and the West Bank are colonized, how exactly are the Palestinians suppose to create a state?!?

East Jerusalem and the West Bank weren't merely colonised, they were spoils of war. If you knew anything about the history of the war involved you'd know that even if Israel had lost this war no palestinian state would have existed. Syria, Jordan and Egypt have always planned on carving up "Palestine" between themselves. Indeed a seminal Palestinian Authority existed in the early 1950's which Jordan refused to recognise and which Egypt annulled while they occupied the Gaza Strip.

wes wrote: »

So, yes they do have such a policy. The Guardian has a nice map detailing the colonization, that you can see here:

Israeli settlements: a new reality, brick by brick

Er that's settlements, that's not a policy of preventing a two state solution.

wes wrote: »

You mean the mandate that was split? Um, the people living there own that land, so they didn't take anything. If you mean after the 1948 war, well then what your saying is irrelevant, as they don't hold that land anymore. Also, there actions don't excuses Israel's in anyway shape or form to put it simply. Now what the actions of other countries has to do with anything I say, is beyond me. Instead of addressing my points you have chosen to ignore them, and have chosen the whataboutery route of argument.

Whataboutery? No. I am merely laying out historical fact. The whole situation could have been resolved decades ago to everyone's satisfaction.

prinz

wes wrote: »

You were mentioning it in the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict and I was pointing out that they are 2 very different solutions, and as such the situations for both to be achieved would have to be different. Trying to apply the GFA, to a different situation makes no sense to put it simply.

I didn't apply the GFA to anything... do I need to spell it out for you? The reference was indicative of a quote by Seamus Mallon, and didn't remotely connect the GFA to the Israel/Palestine situation.

wes

Ok, one last time.

prinz wrote: »

What I am saying is that I'm not really bothered doing it.

So your not bothered backing up what you said then? You see I actually know that Israel has not done what you claim they have done.

prinz wrote: »

The Zionists of the time were willing to accept an area roughly one fifth the size of modern Israel... this was rejected in the Middle East. Try also the UN Partition Plan in Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947... etc etc...

None, of these were made by Israel, they were made by the British and the UN. So, once again you have not proven anything, about Israel's peace offers.

Also, the Peel commission was not universally accepted by Zionists. Also, the Palestinians had every right to reject half there country being given away to foreign colonists. Why would they accept such an absurdity?!?

prinz wrote: »

East Jerusalem and the West Bank weren't merely colonised, they were spoils of war. If you knew anything about the history of the war involved you'd know that even if Israel had lost this war no palestinian state would have existed. Syria, Jordan and Egypt have always planned on carving up "Palestine" between themselves. Indeed a seminal Palestinian Authority existed in the early 1950's which Jordan refused to recognise and which Egypt annulled while they occupied the Gaza Strip.

The "Spoils of war"? What are you on about? Its not the 18th century.

Again, let me spell it out very simply, Israel colonization prevents the creation of a Palestinian state, and is illegal under international law. Again, you refuse to address my argument and are instead going about nonsense such as "spoils of war". Its very simple, Israel does not want peace and there actions speak to this.

What other countries may have or may not have done, is also irrelevant.

prinz wrote: »

Er that's settlements, that's not a policy of preventing a two state solution.

So, basically you are denying simple facts?

Israels colonization directly prevents a 2 state solution. If the Palestinians don't have a room for a viable state, then there can be no 2 state solution, to say otherwise is nonsensical.

prinz wrote: »

Whataboutery? No. I am merely laying out historical fact. The whole situation could have been resolved decades ago to everyone's satisfaction.

No, you are going about what other people have done, which has feck all to do with anything being said here.

Your right, this whole problem would not exist, if Zionists didn't engage in there colonial project. I fail to see the relevance however.

prinz wrote: »

I didn't apply the GFA to anything... do I need to spell it out for you? The reference was indicative of a quote by Seamus Mallon, and didn't remotely connect the GFA to the Israel/Palestine situation.

Fair enough, I misunderstood you then.

Anyway, best to leave it here and prevent further derailment, pm me if you want to continue the conversation.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Anyway, best to leave it here and prevent further derailment, pm me if you want to continue the conversation.

True, it's all going over your head anyway tbh. By and large all two state proposals put forward thus far have been by one side and rejected by the other. Care to guess who did what... It's called history. Immerse yourself it in sometime.

wes

prinz wrote: »

True, it's all going over your head anyway tbh. By and large all two state proposals put forward thus far have been by one side and rejected by the other. Care to guess who did what... It's called history. Immerse yourself it in sometime.

PM'd you a reply.

Hillel

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow. How did this one get to 7 pages?

Man gives Garda guff, and gets arrested in a situation where he had it coming.

and there I thought I lived in a democracy!

In my view it is a textbook example of why the Garda Ombudsman was an urgent necessity.

(It's not that I don't have sympathy for the young Garda - he was under intense pressure and kept his cool.
However, he took the easy option, and in my opinion used his power inappropriately.
I've seen Youth Defence in much more provocative situations and no attempt being made to "move them on".)

sceptre

We don't do handbag fights here, at dawn or otherwise.

So stop having one, guys.

/mod

Incidentally, this thread is ostensibly about the allegation of suppression of free speech in Galway, not a petulant rehash of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

jank

Dont know what to make of this.

The guy in the video did himself no favours at all, but he had a right to protest, as does everyone.

The Garda should have just told him to calm done and that would be that, instead he had to make it into a stupid arrest for "not obeying my will" to do what now?

This will never go to court. Much more tact needed. You wouldnt see the police do that here in NZ, then again Irish gaurds aren't really noted for their tact.

TheNog

jank wrote: »

The Garda should have just told him to calm done and that would be that, instead he had to make it into a stupid arrest for "not obeying my will" to do what now?

If you check out 1.37 minutes into the video you will notice some editing there so maybe the Garda did ask him to calm down and he didnt. It kind of raises the question "why was the video edited in the first place?"

I suppose we will never really know unless the unedited version is shown.

AlekSmart

Phew.....!

I`m still not convinced that we are getting the full version of what brought on the exchange between the oul Jew and the Galwayman.

I`m not seeing enough here to support an accusation of aggressive attack against the Jew,what I AM seeing is him already being in full flight when his first Video`d words are replayed....

Interesting too is the repeated interusage of the terms Jewish and Zionist...but then again we have a long tradition of Catholic/Republican and Protestant/Unionist to get over so perhaps it`s a mind block ?

The Gard is I feel on good firm ground,as he ensured that Tommy got all the rope he needed.....short of writin all of the cautions down in block capitals for Tom to read he played a blinder......I reckon any Judge watchin this stuff will be fairly satisfied if not impressed with the calibre of whats coming out of Templemore these days

My own take is that I read the Papers,watch the News reports and generally try to inform myself on World Events as best I can.

I consider myself lucky to live in a society where I have this benefit BUT I will then go away and make my own mind up as to what,if any,actions I take in response to what I learn.

Over the years I have had enough dealings with "Committed Activists" to last me several lifetimes and as a rule I now try to avoid contact of any sort with such folk as they generally appear to assume that the mass of non-committed folk are of a lesser intellect or sumtin....:rolleyes:

sdanseo

I won't pretend I've read every post in this thread, but I will make a comment based on what I've seen thumbing through it.

There is a fundamental difference between protesting peacefully and making a right annoying prick of yourself in public. What that video depicted, to me, was one person who has a disagreement with something that happened in another country attempting to force his opinions on everyone else.

When he didn't get his way, he took exception to the Jewsish man who was minding his own business but took exception to his people being tarred as murderers, in effect.

When the situation escalated to a stage where a Garda had to even contemplate moving the man on, it ceased to become peaceful and therefore became illegal. The Garda acted in the best interests of the public to avoid disorder occuring, that in itself completely aside from the fact taht 99% of the bystanders looked like they were shocked or appalled in some way.

The man concerned crossed the line from peaceful protest to troublemaking, arrogant retard and deserved to be arrested. I commend the Gardaí, and have to agree that the Garda (who in fairness looked fairly inexperienced) did very well. The way he was bullied by what I can only describe as an egotistic hippy was nothing short of unfair.

/thread.

_ZeeK_

TheNog wrote: »

If you check out 1.37 minutes into the video you will notice some editing there so maybe the Garda did ask him to calm down and he didnt. It kind of raises the question "why was the video edited in the first place?"

I suppose we will never really know unless the unedited version is shown.

while we're on this point, theres a dodgy edit at 6.00. One second the Garda is talking to the American couple and the protestor goes to thank them for their 'solidarity', there is no paddy wagon on shop street. In the next instant the garda is right up in the face of the protestor and giving him his rights and there is a paddy wagon on the street..

nesf

PomBear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9ORXw8ulw

disgraceful how our right to peaceful assembly is abused by the Gardaí and the only reason is because its radical non-PC way of thinking. Note: the Jewish man was peacefully asked to debate in a quiet matter but he was the one making the scene

Well done that Garda. The camera man was blatantly egging on your man and goading him.

Run_to_da_hills

Justind wrote: »

Big style.

Wonder if the PC used by this 'Boycott Israeli Goods' fella contains an Intel chip (now where in the world would that have been designed?) :rolleyes:

Its an AMD.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Does the Israeli state have an official policy to prevent it? ?

They've laid out the parameters of what they'd approve (very good of them). As to the recent mentions of moves towards De Facto statehood....

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Monday declared that Israel would not stand by idly should Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad go ahead with his stated plan to declare a de-facto state within two years.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1111372.html

prinz wrote: »

East Jerusalem and the West Bank weren't merely colonised, they were spoils of war.

"spoils of war"...O thats got legal validity allright.....

prinz wrote: »

Er that's settlements, that's not a policy of preventing a two state solution.

For starters, how can somebody negotiate when their land is being slowly but steadily taken?

Flutterinbantam wrote:

These people who latch on to "causes" and spout their rhetoric in public places should rightly be taken to task when refusing to comply with a Garda request.

You see too many bleeding hearts out there, "supporting" causes they know nothing about but depending on this state for subsistance.

Time for the flags and banners punters get a bit of sense and realise that there are two sides to every story

O look, generalised speculative muck....Why not address the video, instead of indulging preconceptions.

FlutterinBantam

Eh..... speculative muck.... bit over aggressive there I would have thought.

People sometimes mistake "free speech" with a right to harass and antagonise citizens with their particular brand of rhetoric.

With that right comes responsibility and to be perfectly honest ,in my opinion, people have the right to proceed about their business on the public road without being interfered with by some crackpot promulgating some populist views which very few in that particular area either know of or care about.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Eh..... speculative muck.... bit over aggressive there I would have thought.

.

"libel" struck me as inappropriate....."slander" likewise....I've only had two coffees so far so the thesaurus has yet to kick in.

prinz

jank wrote: »

Dont know what to make of this.
The guy in the video did himself no favours at all, but he had a right to protest, as does everyone.

He wasn't arrested because of his stall/protest.

jank wrote: »

The Garda should have just told him to calm done and that would be that, instead he had to make it into a stupid arrest for "not obeying my will" to do what now? This will never go to court. Much more tact needed. You wouldnt see the police do that here in NZ, then again Irish gaurds aren't really noted for their tact.

The garda repeatedly told him to calm down, and back off, to desist from filming his conversations with third parties, and gave him instructions to move his stall in an effort to diffuse the situation and prevent a breach of the peace.

O, and here you go http://www.cipc.govt.nz/cipc.nsf/wpg_URL/Agency-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-Police-Conduct-Report-of-the-Commission-of-Inquiry-into-Police-Conduct?OpenDocument and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Nicholas , http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0003/S00034.htm sunshine and roses.

thebman

lugha wrote: »

What about regimes that seek to annihilate another state?

If we got rid of all of those, they'd be feck all states left if any.

arybvtcw0eolkf

imokyrok wrote: »

Yes, it is believed that Private Joyce was kidnapped by a PLO faction that wanted to embarrass Arafat who had good relations with UNIFIL at the time. Most of the dificulties the Irish Army had during peacekeeping in Lebanon were at the hands of Israel and militia supported by Israel. The murders of Privates Derek Smallhorn and Justin Barrett and shooting of John O'Mahony at the hands of Saad Haddads men was a case in point. The Israelis refused to hand over the two suspects for questioning and later assisted them to leave the area, through Israel, and settle in Detroit. The Irish Army also had intelligence which suggested a Shin Bet officer had been present at those murders. Private Stephen Griffin was another Irish soldier shot dead by Haddads men. Irish officers believed Israel was complicit in all these killings.

But thats getting away from the point I was trying to make.

I'll be in Galway next month and I'd find these cretin's supporting Palestinians offensive to me, as I would someone supporting Israeli actions against UNIFIL troops.

But if you want to get into naming name's of Irish dead, something I'm very reluctant to do, I could also point out the names of Lt.Murphy (also a Galway man) murdered by Amal militia men, serving with the 59th Bn he was murdered at Haddatha by an IED.

Then their were (three more Galway men) Corporal Fintan Henaghan, Private Manix Armstrong and Private Thomas Walsh murdered by by Amal who planted an tank mine on the track from brashit village to the OP at UN 6:9B (a tracked used exclusively by Irish UNIFIL troops) - 64th Bn.

Then there was Corporal Peter Ward murdered by Hezbollah at his post at Al Journ - btw, Cpl Ward was also another west of Ireland man!.

(May they all rest in Peace).

But leaving that argument aside, and I'm not trying to avoid the issue but as a serving member of the Irish Defence Forces I'm really very reluctant to go down the road of throwing the names of my comrades around willy-nilly.

What I find most offensive about Pro-Pal groups in this country is that to this very day the Palestinian authorities inside both Israel & Lebanon continue to drip feed our government information on the where abouts of Kevin Joyce's remains. I find it utterly repugnant that they use his remains as a political pawn, that absolutely turns my stomach.

And I can fully understand the offence these people protesting on the streets of Galway and other Irish towns and cities cause to people. And thats all I really want to say.

I used to get involved in these Israeli/Pal threads but its a largely pointless exercise.

The actions of AGS in this incidence was fully justified IMO and that of a serving member of AGS in this very thread.

.

_ZeeK_

off topic again.

this is not a palestine/israel thread. it is a 'was the protest peaceful and lawful ? / was legitimate free speech suppressed?' thread.