Idiots protesting outside Easons...

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan

The Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team were being used in Iraq and Afghanistan

So this is incorrect so?

PomBear

churchview wrote: »

There's a lot of sanctimonious nonsense being spouted here. Attack the post, not the poster etc.
The fact is that a lot of the signatories of that letter are the same people who have been "protesting" in Galway for over thirty years, quite happy to be supported by the State while doing so.

Can you prove your accusation here? If not, I suggest you keep suggestive derogatory comments to yourself.

People are quite entitled to be sick and tired of listening to them and their latest crusades. Whether or not one agrees with the Blair witchprojecthunt, it's fully understandable that most Galway people are sick of listening to these same whingers for decades.

What gives them the right? These people have the right to association upheld by the European Convention of Human Rights.
13 pages on there is not one solitary reason to be annoyed with this group. The only people I see 'whinging' are posters in this thread.

Very disappointing to see Lelia Doolin associating herself with them by signing that letter.

I for one commend her by having a voice on a very pressing issue

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

The Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team were being used in Iraq and Afghanistan

So this is incorrect so?

Are you really going to focus on a typo to disprove GAAW's campaign?

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

Are you really going to focus on a typo to disprove GAAW's campaign?

Is that what I am doing?
Oh, and it's a pretty big typo, as they usually consist of just a slip of the finger

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

Is that what I am doing?
Oh, and it's a pretty big typo, as they usually consist of just a slip of the finger

Arguing over typo's, the last tirade of a losing argument in an internet forum

mikom

PomBear wrote: »

Arguing over typo's, the last tirade of a losing argument in an internet forum

Who's losing?

?Cee?view

PomBear wrote: »

Can you prove your accusation here? If not, I suggest you keep suggestive derogatory comments to yourself.

Guess what. I don't have to and frankly I couldn't be bothered. I will say that I know at least three of the signatories personally and I know for a fact that they have gladly taken various grants for their various "works". And please don't bother asking me for more details just so my refusal to provide them can be counted as a little internet argument victory. Actually, scratch that, count it as such a victory for all I care;)

PomBear wrote: »

What gives them the right? These people have the right to association upheld by the European Convention of Human Rights.
13 pages on there is not one solitary reason to be annoyed with this group. The only people I see 'whinging' are posters in this thread.

And does that same Convention give someone the right to be annoyed by other people whose only really success is in being irritating:rolleyes: I, and others, am irritated by having to listen to some of them for over 30 years, not just by this "protest".

PomBear wrote: »

I for one commend her by having a voice on a very pressing issue

I don't disagree that she's commendable for having a voice on this issue. What I regret is her associating herself with ineffectual professional moaners.

PomBear

mikom wrote: »

Who's losing?

You tell me......;)

PomBear

churchview wrote: »

Guess what. I don't have to and frankly I couldn't be bothered. I will say that I know at least three of the signatories personally and I know for a fact that they have gladly taken various grants for their various "works". And please don't bother asking me for more details just so my refusal to provide them can be counted as a little internet argument victory. Actually, scratch that, count it as such a victory for all I care;)

I don't count it as a victory, i'm just disappointed people still spout this crap

And does that same Convention give someone the right to be annoyed by other people whose only really success is in being irritating I, and others, am irritated by having to listen to some of them for over 30 years, not just by this "protest".

I have a bit of advice for you, could come in handy if you take it on board. Next time you see an article by them in the paper, don't read the article. See them on the street, walk past. See them on telly, switch the channel. Crazy idea I know...

I don't disagree that she's commendable for having a voice on this issue. What I regret is her associating herself with ineffectual professional moaners.

I'm yet to see any members of GAAW moaning

K_user

McDougal wrote: »

You are only laughing at your own ignorance

Good man - when in doubt resort to insults...

As I said before, not that you answered, you are supporting the rights for people to protest but denying the right for people to protest the protesters.

And while you celebrate the rights of the individual to be able to protest, which is protected by our laws, when those laws don't suit your belief you accuse others of crimes randomly, directly insulting those that don't agree with you.

You accuse people of propaganda, yet are quite happy to share your own.

While I found your last comments funny, I now find myself a little bit bored.

darrenh

Tony Blair is a f**ing legend. IMO he has done a lot for the world. He brought the Provo's and unionists to peace. In my world this is all that matters.
I hate GAAW. I couldnt fight an argument to save my life. People who fight for minorities (in their eyes) are the best at arguments. The build up a fact base of info on who they defend and know sweet f-all on everyone else. Right now I'm drunk, but this all makes sense to me. Thank me if you want GAAW OUT!!!!!!!

Hyperbullet

PomBear wrote: »

Nobody claimed to be shouted at with a microphone, and hardly an excuse for such blatant attack by many posters here. Putting pamphlets in front of you? hardly aggressive now is it. I think some people need to get over themselves.

Its a megaphone, not a microphone. Two very very different things. If a megaphone is blaring 2 feet away from you as you walk into a shop and at the same time someone shoves a pamphlet in your direction how is that act not aggressive? And you still have not addressed the issue of why the GAAW do not have any sort of public support. Do some research maybe? Plenty of other legitimate groups out there who need active support. If you'd like a list, pm me.



The same reasons for the Tony Blair protests, it's a worthy cause if any, one can be ignorant to what the red arrows were being used for in Iraq and Afghanistan but if one is open to this, you might feel completely different.

The Red Arrows were never used in Iraq/Afghanistan. And here you are posting about ignorance.

PomBear wrote: »

I don't count it as a victory, i'm just disappointed people still spout this crap




I have a bit of advice for you, could come in handy if you take it on board. Next time you see an article by them in the paper, don't read the article. See them on the street, walk past. See them on telly, switch the channel. Crazy idea I know...


I'm yet to see any members of GAAW moaning

No, the GAAW members are too busy organising ineffective forms of protest that do nothing but tarnish any chance they have of become a legitimate voice of people who wish to speak out against war, or any other aspect of conflict. They are a joke, a poorly led group of misinformed individuals who have achieved NOTHING. You post here branding all of us as ignorant but how much do you know about this group? Do some research before you align yourself with a bunch of cowboys.

And for the record, I'm not a supporter of Tony Blair. I'm against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe that the evidence given to us, the docile masses, was false and in some cases, fabricated. History will judge G.W. Bush and Tony Blair (and the respective governments) for their actions.

However you can be damn sure I will never support the GAAW and their forms of "protest". Its posts like yours and McDougals that give the left a poor name and make any open minded person feel your argument is a joke, when all you can spout is the word "ignorant" over and over and throw insults at anyone that disputes your view. Its no wonder that so many protests fail with people of your mindset on board. Hypocrites.

EuskalHerria

This thread is an absolute barrel of laughs. Perspective is a funny thing.

Tony Blair, the man who was responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanastani civilians, thousands of soldiers and sending young men and women to die, in an illegal war that was so transparantly about oil that even stevie wonder could see it.
Easons are going to facilitate this man, who had a major responsibility and folded under pressure from America, to help him gain financially. There are people who are opposed to this completely messed up idea that a man responsible for all this, be able to sell and profit from his biography. A reality check is needed, this isn't a typical famous author coming along to sell his or her novel, this is a man who if it was a country that wasn't a super power would be wanted in the Hague.

Then people decided to have a go at peaceful protesters who are opposed to this, and it also angers certain people? Theres some twisted logic, but I can't for the life of me see it.

Hyperbullet

EuskalHerria wrote: »

This thread is an absolute barrel of laughs. Perspective is a funny thing.

Tony Blair, the man who was responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanastani civilians, thousands of soldiers and sending young men and women to die, in an illegal war that was so transparantly about oil that even stevie wonder could see it.
Easons are going to facilitate this man, who had a major responsibility and folded under pressure from America, to help him gain financially. There are people who are opposed to this completely messed up idea that a man responsible for all this, be able to sell and profit from his biography. A reality check is needed, this isn't a typical famous author coming along to sell his or her novel, this is a man who if it was a country that wasn't a super power would be wanted in the Hague.

Then people decided to have a go at peaceful protesters who are opposed to this, and it also angers certain people? Theres some twisted logic, but I can't for the life of me see it.

Perspective is a funny thing.

I agree with a good bit of what you've posted, however if you actually think that the GAAW are a legitimate protest group, that's where the perspective differs.

EuskalHerria

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Perspective is a funny thing.

I agree with a good bit of what you've posted, however if you actually think that the GAAW are a legitimate protest group, that's where the perspective differs.

There seems to be a lot of vague negativity posted about Gaaw. Often I read it on here and ignore it as it just ridiculous, and sometimes borderline obsession. Can someone constructively explain without necessarily attacking Gaaw, what the problem with the group is?

I assume that most people on here are not cheerleaders for war, so what is it that people don't like about an anti war movement?

PomBear

Hyperbullet wrote: »

No, the GAAW members are too busy organising ineffective forms of protest that do nothing but tarnish any chance they have of become a legitimate voice of people who wish to speak out against war, or any other aspect of conflict. They are a joke, a poorly led group of misinformed individuals who have achieved NOTHING. You post here branding all of us as ignorant but how much do you know about this group? Do some research before you align yourself with a bunch of cowboys.

What other group is active solely on anti-war issues in Galway? Not one. If you want to question their legitimacy, what makes them illegitimate? As I see them, they're active on their issues with campaigns that have to be respected imo and fair dues to them. You can't call them illegitimate and make claims about them knowing nothing without something to back it up.

And for the record, I'm not a supporter of Tony Blair. I'm against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe that the evidence given to us, the docile masses, was false and in some cases, fabricated. History will judge G.W. Bush and Tony Blair (and the respective governments) for their actions.

It'll be a long time before that happens imo

However you can be damn sure I will never support the GAAW and their forms of "protest". Its posts like yours and McDougals that give the left a poor name and make any open minded person feel your argument is a joke, when all you can spout is the word "ignorant" over and over and throw insults at anyone that disputes your view. Its no wonder that so many protests fail with people of your mindset on board. Hypocrites.

I haven't thrown insults at anyone in this thread. When I used the word ignorant, it was to describe people who ignore what GAAW are really protesting against and then to ridicule them with the colourful selection of insults you and me have seen in this thread.
I feel people aren't really in a place to ridicule when they are oblivious to what GAAWs cause is.
I also feel I have the right to tell people this as they have no problem ridiculing the GAAW.
I don't really understand how that makes me a hypocrite.

vulcan57

Memnoch wrote: »

Your point does not stand because the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on the twin towers. Saddam/Iraq had no involvement with it or with Al Queda.

I'm sorry my friend, but point does stand. the post I was replying to was to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

po0k

darrenh wrote: »

Tony Blair a war criminal! The same Tony who helped bring about peace in Ireland for the first time in centuries?

Saddam Hussein was an evil bollix. Blair and Bush just f**ked up the way they took him out of power. They had no after plan.

Do you really honestly think that Blair is evil???!!!!

Next year ye'll want Macnus shut down for using paper aeroplanes in its parade or something stupid like that. Is it not ye who have taken the airshow away from us? GAAW does not represent Galway and should not be allowed use its name. Get a life and help some charities if you want to do some good.

Read more widely.
Whitey be treacherous yo.

PomBear

vulcan57 wrote: »

I'm sorry my friend, but point does stand. the post I was replying to was to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.

What do the twin towers have to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan or for that matter Tony Blair?

?Cee?view

PomBear wrote: »

I'm yet to see any members of GAAW moaning

Should have gone to Specsavers

Wompa1

PomBear wrote: »

What do the twin towers have to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan or for that matter Tony Blair?

Weren't Bin Ladens training camps in Afghanistan as well as the man himself at the time of the attacks?

Didn't Bin Laden and his group call for a holy war first?

Also in regards to Iraq, if they wanted a war the whole Weapons Of Mass Destruction angle was a bad one to go by, the 18 or so ignored UN treaties should have sufficed for the appropriate action and it never did.

?Cee?view

People here are criticising Blair for being connected to agents of death and state sponsored terrorism. Interestingly, some here appear to think that I criticise this view because I castigate the twitterings of GAAW. A simplistic view which really should be expected from this group's one-dimensional followers. Their belief (shown on this thread), seems to be that if you dislike GAAW you're a Blair supporter.

That members of certain anti US and UK "anti-war" groups have also been connected to terrorists and killers is conveniently ignored.

As far as I'm concerned killers are killers, whether state sponsored or not. Some have had the maturity to acknowledge their past and to move on (for instance those involved in the peace process in the North), while others continue to preach, unabashed, to the rest of the world, criticising those they still consider their "enemies".

A little bit of research on these groups and the background of their members would be of benefit to those who blindly follow them.

Now, for the intellectually challenged on this thread.

I, and a few others here have said the following:

1. We do not and did not support the war in Iraq and we do not and did not support the killing of Iraqis.

2. Notwithstanding what I've written in 1 above, we still consider (and we have the right to an opinion according to the UN, the Irish Constitution, the Catechism, the Sharia etc.) that GAAW are an annoying collective of wittering windbags.

EuskalHerria

churchview wrote: »

People here are criticising Blair for being connected to agents of death and state sponsored terrorism. Interestingly, some here appear to think that I criticise this view because I castigate the twitterings of GAAW. A simplistic view which really should be expected from this group's one-dimensional followers. Their belief (shown on this thread), seems to be that if you dislike GAAW you're a Blair supporter.

On your last line, I would hope that people here are not equating not supporting Gaaw to supporting blair. It does however seem a bit odd that people will not substantiate on their claims against Gaaw, yet will still have a go at the group for protesting a man like Blair, that seems a bit twisted to me.

That members of certain anti US and UK "anti-war" groups have also been connected to terrorists and killers is conveniently ignored.

This has nothing to do with GAAW, so what's your point here?

As far as I'm concerned killers are killers, whether state sponsored or not. Some have had the maturity to acknowledge their past and to move on (for instance those involved in the peace process in the North), while others continue to preach, unabashed, to the rest of the world, criticising those they still consider their "enemies".

You say killers are killers, yet all you done in this thread is have a go at an anti war movement, and done very little to voice any objections you have to a man like Blair being facilitated to make money in a book store. I amn't equating you to supporting Blair before you think I am, but it does seem odd when people, such as you have done, have a go at Gaaw and some how are not angered more at the idea of a man responsible

Now, for the intellectually challenged on this thread.

I, and a few others here have said the following:

1. We do not and did not support the war in Iraq and we do not and did not support the killing of Iraqis.

2. Notwithstanding what I've written in 1 above, we still consider (and we have the right to an opinion according to the UN, the Irish Constitution, the Catechism, the Sharia etc.) that GAAW are an annoying collective of wittering windbags.

1. Completely agree, it was an outrageous decision to go to two needless wars at the cost of so many people dying, and still dying as a result of inept leadership. Even more reason to agree that a man responsible for the two wars you agree are horrendous should not be welcomed with open arms to make more money for himself.

2. You have every right to say what you feel, I don't know why you feel your being censored. However as I asked in my post above, its very easy for people to whine about someone or some group, but can you expand on just having a go at the group? You've expressed your disapproval with the wars so shouldn't the idea of an anti-war movement seem appealing. Gaaw is an organisation that has open membership so I always wonder why people have a go at Gaaw, yet do nothing to highlight there disapproval with these wars and don't try and change gaaw which you could easily do.

Memnoch

churchview wrote: »

People here are criticising Blair for being connected to agents of death and state sponsored terrorism. Interestingly, some here appear to think that I criticise this view because I castigate the twitterings of GAAW. A simplistic view which really should be expected from this group's one-dimensional followers. Their belief (shown on this thread), seems to be that if you dislike GAAW you're a Blair supporter.

That members of certain anti US and UK "anti-war" groups have also been connected to terrorists and killers is conveniently ignored.

As far as I'm concerned killers are killers, whether state sponsored or not. Some have had the maturity to acknowledge their past and to move on (for instance those involved in the peace process in the North), while others continue to preach, unabashed, to the rest of the world, criticising those they still consider their "enemies".

A little bit of research on these groups and the background of their members would be of benefit to those who blindly follow them.

Now, for the intellectually challenged on this thread.

I, and a few others here have said the following:

1. We do not and did not support the war in Iraq and we do not and did not support the killing of Iraqis.

2. Notwithstanding what I've written in 1 above, we still consider (and we have the right to an opinion according to the UN, the Irish Constitution, the Catechism, the Sharia etc.) that GAAW are an annoying collective of wittering windbags.

You're making a lot of accusations here and engaging in smear tactics.

"killers" "associated with terrorists" etc etc.

Please provide proof for these claims, specifically that members of the GAAW are involved in the kind of activities you suggest, alternatively please retract said claims.

?Cee?view

Memnoch wrote: »

You're making a lot of accusations here and engaging in smear tactics.

"killers" "associated with terrorists" etc etc.

Please provide proof for these claims, specifically that members of the GAAW are involved in the kind of activities you suggest, alternatively please retract said claims.

Memnoch,

Perhaps you have some difficulties with reading?

I have not made any claims, "specifically that members of the GAAW are involved in the kind of activities [you] suggest". I have spoken in general terms about "anti-war" type organisations without referencing specific organisations in relation to any specific claims. I therefore have nothing to retract.

I would suggest that people carry out their own research about members of any organisation before aligning themselves to an organisation.

EuskalHerria,

Thanks for your reasoned questions. I'll get back to them later. However, I will say for now that most of the negative comments to which you were responding were not directed at you. You are clearly perfectly capable of taking a nuanced and balanced view which is lacking from some other contributors here.

Sponge Bob

Oh Dear. Must mention Godwins Law lest the GAAW defenceocrati prove it is true. I urge the utmost restraint be shown by all sides and that future posts in this thread display above all else a judicious admixture of unctous and mollifyingly platitudinous linguistically non confrontational constructs and only then in the most dulcet of saxon tonality.

Godwins Law explained below for the general benefit of the slower of wit.

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches" In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

EuskalHerria

churchview wrote: »

EuskalHerria,

Thanks for your reasoned questions. I'll get back to them later. However, I will say for now that most of the negative comments to which you were responding were not directed at you. You are clearly perfectly capable of taking a nuanced and balanced view which is lacking from some other contributors here.

Thats fair enough, I look forward to your reply.

McDougal

darrenh wrote: »

Tony Blair is a f**ing legend. IMO he has done a lot for the world. He brought the Provo's and unionists to peace. In my world this is all that matters.
I hate GAAW. I couldnt fight an argument to save my life. People who fight for minorities (in their eyes) are the best at arguments. The build up a fact base of info on who they defend and know sweet f-all on everyone else. Right now I'm drunk, but this all makes sense to me. Thank me if you want GAAW OUT!!!!!!!

There would have been peace in the north with or without Tony Blair. He just happened to be prime minister at the time after all the ground work started to bear fruit. Had Tony Blair been PM in the 70s or 80s do you think it would have made any difference. The peace process is largely a result of the people of Ireland deciding to turn their backs on the blind alley that was sectarian violence.

Only an uneducated ape would say "Tony Blair is a f**king legend. He brought the Provo's and unionists to peace. In my world this is all that matters"

Wickerman1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

An enforced boycott is not very democratic.

True, and what happened to freedom of speech! guess they are against this too!

It's amazing the way we are so good at judging and taking the moral high ground when it comes to foreign events but completely useless at sorting our own problems out.
Wonder how many of these wasters were protesting outside the churches and government offices regarding the recent church scandels:- NONE.

McDougal

Wickerman1 wrote: »

True, and what happened to freedom of speech! guess they are against this too!

It's amazing the way we are so good at judging and taking the moral high ground when it comes to foreign events but completely useless at sorting our own problems out.
Wonder how many of these wasters were protesting outside the churches and government offices regarding the recent church scandels:- NONE.

There are so many things wrong with that post I don't even know where to begin.