Tony Blairs booky wook

Wolfe Tone

The people protesting are the same shower who'd shoot you if you had a friendship with a Protestant.

Pure bollux Denerick, I think you know that yourself.

Byron85

Denerick wrote: »

The Soviet Union is thataway

---

>

What?!?!?

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

The Soviet Union is thataway

---

>

The corporate fascists would love if anti-imperialists left the country.

Wolfe Tone

Byron85 wrote: »

What?!?!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPwMM2dNccE

Byron85

Denerick wrote: »

The people protesting are the same shower who'd shoot you if you had a friendship with a Protestant.

The same imbeciles who've kept this country back for generations.

I know a few of the people there and what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense. They're nice, down to earth and decent people. They have the courage of their believes.

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

The people who buy his books are 'despicable west brits'

The Guards who protect a foreign dignatory from assault and murder are 'west brit scum protecting a war criminal'

The people protesting are the same shower who'd shoot you if you had a friendship with a Protestant.

The same imbeciles who've kept this country back for generations.

Your claim that this was not opposed to freedom of speech is destroyed by your use of violence to establish your retarded little point.

My God how I'm sick of the retarded protestors who ruin this countries good name. I'd love to send them all off to Connaught.

The mask is now off and the ignorant extremism of the right winger is exposed.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Pure bollux Denerick, I think you know that yourself.

I did lose the run of myself, somewhat.

Denerick

McDougal wrote: »

The mask is now off and the ignorant extremism of the right winger is exposed.

To you, everyone is right wing. Which is what pisses me off most about political extremists, the kind who turn up to these events. The unrepresentative hackery of it all is astounding.

nacho libre

the hypocrisy of trying to suggest your indignant about these protests because it is an affront to academic freedom and freedom of speech. i suspect denerick your responses would be somewhat different if there was a book launch in easons for the likes of Bashar al-Assad.

Wolfe Tone

In my mind there is nothing wrong with protesting. Throwing things damages the protest itself I feel. Enables spin men to write it off as a bunch of idiots on a day out.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick, seen as you are apparently so right wing would you like to swap usernames?

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

The people who buy his books are 'despicable west brits'

Where did i use that term?

The Guards who protect a foreign dignatory from assault and murder are 'west brit scum protecting a war criminal'

Who called them scum[/quote]

The people protesting are the same shower who'd shoot you if you had a friendship with a Protestant.

??? You're letting yourself down even more with this sort of nonsense.

The same imbeciles who've kept this country back for generations.

Personally i would use that term to describe the catholic church, the political and banking establishment

Your claim that this was not opposed to freedom of speech is destroyed by your use of violence to establish your retarded little point.

Where have i used violence and how s my post retarded?

My God how I'm sick of the retarded protestors who ruin this countries good name. I'd love to send them all off to Connaught.

Explain please??

Jeboa Safari

nacho libre wrote: »

the hypocrisy of trying to suggest your indignant about these protests because it is an affront to academic freedom and freedom of speech. i suspect denerick your responses would be somewhat different if there was a book launch in easons for the likes of Bashar al-Assad.

And can you imagine the uproar from the lefties if people through eggs at him?

ANarcho-Munk

Denerick wrote: »

The people who buy his books are 'despicable west brits'

The Guards who protect a foreign dignatory from assault and murder are 'west brit scum protecting a war criminal'

The people protesting are the same shower who'd shoot you if you had a friendship with a Protestant.

The same imbeciles who've kept this country back for generations.

Your claim that this was not opposed to freedom of speech is destroyed by your use of violence to establish your retarded little point.

My God how I'm sick of the retarded protestors who ruin this countries good name. I'd love to send them all off to Connaught.

Just because the tiny and irrelevant contingent of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement were present doesn't mean that everyone who was protesting is some sort of murdering fanatical nationalist. The vast majority where there because they oppose his views on the Iraq war and foreign policy.


As a side note you consistenly give out about the wide innaccurate brushes that extremism and political protests paints and yet here you are mouthing off complete mis-truths and making ridiculous and faecitious charecterisations.
Absurdity isn't the word for it.

Denerick

There were 300 people protesting. Take out the fringe Republican elements, the Palestian solidarity organisation, and the odd anarchist or Trotskyist, and what's left? Maybe one or two students who came along just for the novelty.

Representative you ain't.

nacho libre

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And can you imagine the uproar from the lefties if people through eggs at him?

i believe people are entitled to protect peacefully. i would certainly hope people would protest a visit by the likes of Assad and do so peacefully.

i hope you are not trying to suggest all who oppose blair's presence and the iraq war were represented by those who could not protest peacefully today. it's pure twaddle if you were.

McDougal

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And can you imagine the uproar from the lefties if people through eggs at him?

I doubt there would be any

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

There were 300 people protesting. Take out the fringe Republican elements, the Palestian solidarity organisation, and the odd anarchist or Trotskyist, and what's left? Maybe one or two students who came along just for the novelty.

Representative you ain't.

And you are only representative of the cowards and warmongerers

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

No.

Blair is a retired British Prime Minister who made a controversial decision to bring Britain into war against Iraq. His decision should be viewed through that lense. Mass protest against the said invasion (Which was both illegal and immoral) is pointless. In reality these kinds of protests are just a way of letting the average student twit his day out in the sun, his chance to feel 'radical' and all that good stuff.

I'll go to the protest if you can guarantee there were won't be punk hairstyled twats bringing down the decorum of the event.

Lol. I had to laugh.

Prophecy or what?

To quote Mark Twain; 'History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme'.

Denerick

McDougal wrote: »

And you are only representative of the cowards and warmongerers

I'm neither a coward or a warmongerer. Just an average guy who believes everybody is entitled to their say, without having to deal with the intimidation by the feckless and the extreme.

Coillte_Bhoy

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Where did i use that term?



Who called them scum

??? You're letting yourself down even more with this sort of nonsense.



Personally i would use that term to describe the catholic church, the political and banking establishment



Where have i used violence and how s my post retarded?



Explain please??[/QUOTE]

Denerick...care to answer me?

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

I'm neither a coward or a warmongerer. Just an average guy who believes everybody is entitled to their say, without having to deal with the intimidation by the feckless and the extreme.

Dead Iraqis have no say but who cares about hundreds of thousands of dead brown people and all the orphans left behind? Let us roll out the red carpet for Blair and let him be followed by Milosevic and Mugabe! I presume you would welcome Larry Murphy's book launch or did he not kill enough people for your liking?

Jeboa Safari

What about all the Iraqi's that now do have a say, that they would never have had under Saddam?

McDougal

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What about all the Iraqi's that now do have a say, that they would never have had under Saddam?

Are they now allowed tick a box every 5 years to choose who serves in the puppet parliament? Ah bless. I'm sure it was worth all the death, destruction, maiming and bombing. Will we now see the US invade every country that does not have a parliament?

AlekSmart

Will we now see the US invade every country that does not have a parliament?

Steady on McDougal....will ye at least wait until the Dáil returns before giving them ideas !!!!

McDougal

Article by John Pilger

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/08/07/tony-blair-must-be-prosecuted-for-war-crimes/

Brussels Sprout

Denerick wrote: »

There is an inherent danger in idiots getting their voices heard. In reality this motley assortment of thugs and imbeciles would be better off sleeping in on a Saturday morning rather than indulging in self righteous protesting at the expense of rational debate, civility or common sense.

This is pretty much what the 'established irish society' was saying about the rebels in 1916 prior to their execution.

McDougal

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is pretty much what the 'established irish society' was saying about the rebels in 1916 prior to their execution.

Denerick would have been the first to throw rotten veg at the 1916 prisioners.

Jeboa Safari

McDougal wrote: »

Are they now allowed tick a box every 5 years to choose who serves in the puppet parliament? Ah bless. I'm sure it was worth all the death, destruction, maiming and bombing. Will we now see the US invade every country that does not have a parliament?

They can vote in free elections now yes. I don't know if it was, future generations may be thankful if they live in a free Iraq and not under one of Saddams sons.

McDougal

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They can vote in free elections now yes. I don't know if it was, future generations may be thankful if they live in a free Iraq and not under one of Saddams sons.

This is the free Iraq where Blackwater mercenaries roam free and murder at will? The free Iraq where the public wealth has been handed over to private corporations? The free Iraq that still has over 50,000 US troops occupying it? The free Iraq where kids are born mutilated because of the effects of white phosporous? The free Iraq that has the highest cancer rates in the world thanks to the use of chemical weapons by the invaders? The free Iraq that has seen unemployment skyrocket since the invasion? The free Iraq that 4 million refugees were forced to flee to escape violence? The free Iraq that is now riddled with religious sectarianism and extremism? The free Iraq that has bombs going off in markets every week?

I'm really interested in your definition of freedom. No matter what hell you live in and no matter how much you suffer you are free as long as you tick a piece of paper every few years to choose which puppet gets the merc?

Denerick

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is pretty much what the 'established irish society' was saying about the rebels in 1916 prior to their execution.

Yeah. 1916 is a great analogy.

A tiny group of elitists took up arms against a regime without any democratic mandate, justification or popular support. I've done the rounds with Republicans on this many times so I won't bother again. Needless to say you need to read some Irish history, and then some political science to see how stupid your point is.

Denerick

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Denerick...care to answer me?

What do you want me to say? I over-reached myself but that doesn't mean that the 300 odd balls assembled today were not a ragtag assortment of cranks and nutjobs.

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

Yeah. 1916 is a great analogy.

A tiny group of elitists took up arms against a regime without any democratic mandate, justification or popular support. I've done the rounds with Republicans on this many times so I won't bother again. Needless to say you need to read some Irish history, and then some political science to see how stupid your point is.

Imagine taking up arms against the legitamite British rulers of Ireland? Shocking stuff. Why don't you write a letter to the sindo? They always print crap about how anyone who didn't bow before the brits was a terrorist.

ANarcho-Munk

Denerick wrote: »

In reality these kinds of protests are just a way of letting the average student twit his day out in the sun, his chance to feel 'radical' and all that good stuff.

I'll go to the protest if you can guarantee there were won't be punk hairstyled twats bringing down the decorum of the event.

To be so socially narrow-minded as to call everyone who tries to make their voice heard either a student twat, republican retard or a braindead idiot not only asserts your own intellectual bankruptcy but also shows your unwillingness to actually deal with the substantive issues.


I mean, basing something solely on a persons haircut? You sound worse than my geriatric grandmother.

There were 300 people protesting. Take out the fringe Republican elements, the Palestian solidarity organisation, and the odd anarchist or Trotskyist, and what's left? Maybe one or two students who came along just for the novelty.

Representative you ain't.

Apart from the nationalists I don't think it's very helpful to charactertise groups of people in this situation. If I were attending this protest it wouldn't be because of my trotskyism/anarchism/social-democratism etc, it would be because first and foremost that I am an anti-war protestor.

The idea of representation is very abstract in this sense also. By its very nature not many people are going to attend street protests of this sort as the propensity of things turning nasty can unfortuantly be quite high. It also takes a lot of energy to attend protests and they nearly always end in some sort of demoralisation. A lot of people also simply don't have the time to attend or are a bit more hush about their politics and viewpoints. Another issue that turns people away is the inevitable heavy Garda and security presence which can be very intimidating.
Even personally I don't particularly like attending protests as I find the ritual nature of it entirely drab and weary, for the most part i'd prefer to be doing something that I see as being much more constructive.


But above all this, need I remind you of the thousands of people who took to the streets of Ireland in 2003 at protest of the war in Iraq? That was quite representative.

Jeboa Safari

McDougal wrote: »

This is the free Iraq where Blackwater mercenaries roam free and murder at will? The free Iraq where the public wealth has been handed over to private corporations? The free Iraq that still has over 50,000 US troops occupying it? The free Iraq where kids are born mutilated because of the effects of white phosporous? The free Iraq that has the highest cancer rates in the world thanks to the use of chemical weapons by the invaders? The free Iraq that has seen unemployment skyrocket since the invasion? The free Iraq that 4 million refugees were forced to flee to escape violence? The free Iraq that is now riddled with religious sectarianism and extremism? The free Iraq that has bombs going off in markets every week?

I'm really interested in your definition of freedom. No matter what hell you live in and no matter how much you suffer you are free as long as you tick a piece of paper every few years to choose which puppet gets the merc?

Do you have links to back up them statements?
Would you regard Ireland as not free if the UDF bombed Dublin tomorrow?

McDougal

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Do you have links to back up them statements?
Would you regard Ireland as not free if the UDF bombed Dublin tomorrow?

Yes I can back them all up. Which one are you curious about?

And you never answered my question, do you define freedom as being granted the opportunity to tick a piece of paper every few years?

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

What do you want me to say? I over-reached myself but that doesn't mean that the 300 odd balls assembled today were not a ragtag assortment of cranks and nutjobs.

Denerick wrote: »

Your claim that this was not opposed to freedom of speech is destroyed by your use of violence to establish your retarded little point.

Denerick wrote: »

My God how I'm sick of the retarded protestors who ruin this countries good name. I'd love to send them all off to Connaught.

Where have i used violence how was my post retarded??

Wtf is the Connaught reference supposed to mean?

Denerick

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

To be so socially narrow-minded as to call everyone who tries to make their voice heard either a student twat, republican retard or a braindead idiot not only asserts your own intellectual bankruptcy but also shows your unwillingness to actually deal with the substantive issues.


I mean, basing something solely on a persons haircut? You sound worse than my geriatric grandmother.




Apart from the nationalists I don't think it's very helpful to charactertise groups of people in this situation. If I were attending this protest it wouldn't be because of my trotskyism/anarchism/social-democratism etc, it would be because first and foremost that I am an anti-war protestor.

The idea of representation is very abstract in this sense also. By its very nature not many people are going to attend street protests of this sort as the propensity of things turning nasty can unfortuantly be quite high. It also takes a lot of energy to attend protests and they nearly always end in some sort of demoralisation. A lot of people also simply don't have the time to attend or are a bit more hush about their politics and viewpoints. Another issue that turns people away is the inevitable heavy Garda and security presence which can be very intimidating.
Even personally I don't particularly like attending protests as I find the ritual nature of it entirely drab and weary, for the most part i'd prefer to be doing something that I see as being much more constructive.


But above all this, need I remind you of the thousands of people who took to the streets of Ireland in 2003 at protest of the war in Iraq? That was quite representative.

Wevs. This wasn't about Iraq and you know it. The reason only 300 people turned up is because no-one else cares. The fact that these protestors are unrepresentative of the nation at large is far from irrelevant, it is the most salient aspect of this.

If you see 200 paedophiles protesting in front of Ann Summers, would you say it was a 'paedo protest' or an 'anti adult sex protest'? Of course the example is exaggerated, but your semantics are all over the place.

Denerick

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Where have i used violence how was my post retarded??

Wtf is the Connaught reference supposed to mean?

I don't know, I wasn't talking about you in the particular. I was talking about the protestors.

Connaught just seems like a really ****ty place, seems the right sort of place for them. Cromwell had the right idea

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

Wevs. This wasn't about Iraq and you know it. The reason only 300 people turned up is because no-one else cares. The fact that these protestors are unrepresentative of the nation at large is far from irrelevant, it is the most salient aspect of this.

If you see 200 paedophiles protesting in front of Ann Summers, would you say it was a 'paedo protest' or an 'anti adult sex protest'? Of course the example is exaggerated, but your semantics are all over the place.

So do you support free speech for paedophiles too or is it just war criminals?

Denerick

McDougal wrote: »

So do you support free speech for paedophiles too or is it just war criminals?

Everyone has the right to express their opinion so long as they are not actively hurting someone else. You have the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. I thought you would have learnt a little something from the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know, I wasn't talking about you in the particular. I was talking about the protestors.

Connaught just seems like a really ****ty place, seems the right sort of place for them. Cromwell had the right idea

You quite clearly were referring to me. You think connaught is a ****ty place?? Sums your attitude up, and you disliked being referred to as a west brit?? If the cap fits, wear it

Anyway your retarded jibe has been reported. Way out of line imo

Denerick

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

You quite clearly were referring to me. You think connaught is a ****ty place?? Sums your attitude up, and you disliked being referred to as a wets brit??

Anyway your retarded jibe has been reported. Way out of line imo

What are you on? I wasn't referring to you, don't be so self obsessed. The Connaught thing was a joke. Lighten up.

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

What are you on? I wasn't referring to you, don't be so self obsessed. The Connaught thing was a joke. Lighten up.

Denerick wrote: »

Your claim that this was not opposed to freedom of speech is destroyed by your use of violence to establish your retarded little point.

I think it's quite clear who you were referring to.

Denerick

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

I think it's quite clear who you were referring to.

I assumed that you were present at the protest and engaged in violence to make your point. It clearly looked like that from the way your presented your statement. thus that comment was only personalised if you were in fact present and throwing eggs. In which case I will have nothing to retract, as the statement would be truthful. if you were not present and not throwing eggs then the statement clearly doesn't apply to you in the particular, but you in the generalised sense.

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

I assumed that you were present at the protest and engaged in violence to make your point. It clearly looked like that from the way your presented your statement. thus that comment was only personalised if you were in fact present and throwing eggs. In which case I will have nothing to retract, as the statement would be truthful. if you were not present and not throwing eggs then the statement clearly doesn't apply to you in the particular, but you in the generalised sense.

So it's now fascist to engage in public a protest against a figure perceived by many to be a war mongerer?? How on earth is it opposed to freedom of speech???

This was my post. How on earth can you deduce that i was at the protest from this?? You make pretty wide assumptions. You called my post retarted, which is out of line. Dont try and cloud the issue.

Brussels Sprout

Denerick wrote: »

Yeah. 1916 is a great analogy.

A tiny group of elitists took up arms against a regime without any democratic mandate, justification or popular support. I've done the rounds with Republicans on this many times so I won't bother again. Needless to say you need to read some Irish history, and then some political science to see how stupid your point is.

My analogy was not regarding the purpose of the protest but how your comments reminded me of what certain sections of society said about the rebels during and after the rising.

Your bitter and hostile attitude stinks by the way.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Everyone has the right to express their opinion so long as I agree with them.

Fixed that for you

AnimalRights

Denerick wrote: »

There were 300 people protesting. Take out the fringe Republican elements, the Palestian solidarity organisation, and the odd anarchist or Trotskyist, and what's left? Maybe one or two students who came along just for the novelty.

Representative you ain't.

I was at this protest and as I said in a different forum it was a wide varying attendence of people from different walks of life.

AnimalRights

My photos..

PUNK ROCK wrote: »

full album here...
http://pix.ie/punkrock/album/386714