Ridiculous restrictions on full discussion of the Manchester attack and its context

hatrickpatrick

So on both AH and Politics Cafe, the threads relating to the Manchester attack now have attached warnings not to mention either the history of IRA terrorism in mainland UK or the conflict in the middle east between the Israelis and the Palestinians, on the ludicrous grounds of their supposed off topic status.

To give you an analogy, these restrictions are like telling people that in discussing a current volcanic eruption, they are not allowed to discuss either (a) past volcanic eruptions in the same geographic area and their consequences / solutions, or (b) the underlying situation regarding plate tectonics and/or mantle plumes which gives rise to some of that volcanic activity.

Why stifling such discussion is seen as desirable is entirely beyond me. Both issues are entirely relevant to what happened in Manchester the other night, from numerous points of view - discussing how people get radicalised and how to tackle it, discussing how prepared the authorities are to deal with such incidents and comparing historical approaches to current ones, from police response to media coverage, discussing how such conflicts have been cooled in the past and whether the same tactics might work today, discussing where this situation is likely to lead both domestically and geopolitically.

These are conversations which are being had around every dinner table and every pub/restaurant in Ireland over the last couple of days since the attacks, it is absolutely ridiculous that Boards is banning them - presumably on the usual grounds of being terrified of heated discussion?

Ye're creating elephants the size of... well, elephants in the room.

TherapyBoy

The problem is letting these threads run without restriction means they get completely taken over by people talking about IRA history or the Middle East. A thread about the atrocity in Manchester ends up not discussing Manchester & soon you have 20 threads discussing the same (off-topic) subject.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I understand the reasons for doing it.

hatrickpatrick

TherapyBoy wrote: »

The problem is letting these threads run without restriction means they get completely taken over by people talking about IRA history or the Middle East. A thread about the atrocity in Manchester ends up not discussing Manchester & soon you have 20 threads discussing the same (off-topic) subject.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I understand the reasons for doing it.

But you're discussing the historical context, which is totally relevant. What should happen in that case is that the AH thread is restricted to the current event and the politics cafe thread is for discussing the wider context - right now we have two threads neither of which allow discussion of the background.

Overheal

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, American, or both, but I don't get what the IRA, or the Israel-Palestine conflict has to do with the concert bombing. It seems to me that given the nature of both of those topics, they would do far more to enflame the conversation about the attack than to inform it. That sounds somewhat like talking about abortion and evolution in a conversation about someone dying from a stroke.

Cookie_Monster

Overheal wrote: »

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, American, or both, but I don't get what the IRA, or the Israel-Palestine conflict has to do with the concert bombing. It seems to me that given the nature of both of those topics, they would do far more to enflame the conversation about the attack than to inform it. That sounds somewhat like talking about abortion and evolution in a conversation about someone dying from a stroke.

really, both the recent attack and previous IRA occurred as a result of extremist terrorists operating in the UK.. yeah the ideology may be different but the outcome is pretty much the same and completely comparable. Israel-Palestine less so because of the geographic remoteness to Manchester.

Yourself isit

Overheal wrote: »

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, American, or both, but I don't get what the IRA, or the Israel-Palestine conflict has to do with the concert bombing. It seems to me that given the nature of both of those topics, they would do far more to enflame the conversation about the attack than to inform it. That sounds somewhat like talking about abortion and evolution in a conversation about someone dying from a stroke.

It was an attempt at whataboutary. Of course saying "IRA=Isis" is going to bring in a total new kind of thread.

Here op - knock yourself out.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057744908/1/#post103614109

jackofalltrades

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So on both AH and Politics Cafe, the threads relating to the Manchester attack now have attached warnings not to mention either the history of IRA terrorism in mainland UK or the conflict in the middle east between the Israelis and the Palestinians, on the ludicrous grounds of their supposed off topic status.

I think this is a good decision by the Mods.
Discussion of Israel/Palestine will take over the thread completely and turn it into another never ending multi-quote battle.

The main reason people bring up the IRA into threads like this is to repeatedly make flawed comparisons between the IRA/Irish people and Islamic terrorism.
They also try to paint the IRA as christian extremists, which they were not.
You even had one poster, in one of the threads, claim that the IRA could be responsible for the attack.

And I know you're probably going to say that they should be allowed say these things and their arguments should be disproven.
But it's the same flawed argument used over and over again.
There's only so many times you have the patience to disprove it.
There comes a stage where it just trolling or trying to derail a thread.

Stheno

IN the cafe, a poster has opened a thread to discuss the IRA/ISIS and similarities/differences, and posters who raise such points are being redirected there.

If as regularly happens in the cafe, it turns into trench warfare between hardline republicans and unionists hijacking the thread however, it will be heavily moderated.

So far it's actually an interesting debate.

riffmongous

Stheno wrote: »

IN the cafe, a poster has opened a thread to discuss the IRA/ISIS and similarities/differences, and posters who raise such points are being redirected there.

If as regularly happens in the cafe, it turns into trench warfare between hardline republicans and unionists hijacking the thread however, it will be heavily moderated.

So far it's actually an interesting debate.

Just wait until someone says the British were also terrorists, then it'll really take off

Stheno

riffmongous wrote: »

Just wait until someone says the British were also terrorists, then it'll really take off

In fairness I think we've allowed a lot of broad discussion in the thread, what's your problem here?

hatrick's original issue has been addressed to the point where he claims credit for the thread, the thread is progressing and I've posted a low level warning in terms of squabbling about the definition of the IRA

I've not posted a mod warning, rather I've asked if we can agree on the definition of the IRA etc so we all have clarity

theres at least one mod will throw an infraction your way for mentioning the IRA at all so this is not a big shock tbh

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

theres at least one mod will throw an infraction your way for mentioning the IRA at all so this is not a big shock tbh

Report it.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Report it.

i hear ya but

i. no point whatsoever in appealing to a mod nor escalating against a mod
ii. you getted pinned as one of 'those posters' imo
iii. not bothered. i just stopped posting, mainly.

anyway this thread isnt about that and there are plenty threads dealing with the issue so ill shut up

TherapyBoy

By reporting it a record is made. If you believe a moderator is acting in error or doing something wrong, by reporting it you make sure it has to be dealt with. Not reporting it & then complaining about wrongdoing elsewhere is pointless.

Please, use the report function if you see something worthy of it.

C Montgomery Gurns II

Peregrine banned me for saying the attack was a direct result of New Labour under Blair from 1997- 2010. Before it became apparent that the attack occurred at the entrance, rather than the ticket only area, I speculated that, due to how suspicious a lone, bulky dressed man would look travelling alone to an artist primarily beloved by female teens, pre teens and such and would surely be challenged by security, that the attacker may have been female- only 3 weeks before a mother and daughter alleged ISIS suicide team had been arrested and charged in London. He accused me of scaremongering.

If I can maybe explain my statement:

In the late 80's into the 90's, the UK granted asylum to numerous Islamist radicals. Omar Bakri and Abu Qatada were two (Abu Hamza had previously arrived on a student visa)

After attacks on Paris in 1995, the French and US governments were incensed that the UK was allowing radical clerics like the aforementioned three, among many others, an effective free rein to preach and recruit in London, in return for them not calling for violence against Britain. It lead to the French and US security services labelling London Londonistan. After all, the father of Salman Abedi fled Libya because he was aligned with an Al Quaeda linked group and his life was in danger from the anti Islamist forces of Col Gaddafi. Essentially, you could turn up in London, say I despise your way of life, and explain that my own government despises my own views and will kill me. It's akin to a Nazi war criminal fleeing post war Germany and being granted political asylum in Israel.

There was a butterfly effect. The radical clerics influenced young, at the time, men like Anwar Choudhry, Richard Reid, Zacarias Mousaooi and so forth. The last two went on suicide missions, the first stayed at home and decided to spread his influence.

If not for UK government kow towing in the 80's and 90's, Salman's AQ sympathetic father would not have been granted asylum in Britain.

His son would therefore not have been born in the UK in 1994.

If it were not for New Labour political correctness, Salman, his father, his family, would have been deported from the UK after it became apparent that his father was affiliated with the LIFG.

That never happened.


22 people died on Monday due to political correctness. Pointing out such has led to a ban from a moderator who can't handle rational debate.

If I said x amount of people had died by suicide due to FF property porn, would I have copped a ban?

I find it ironic today watching the world's most despised by feminist bogeyman (Trumo) on TV with the world's most inadvertent world record breakingl rapist, by the assistance of third parties (Angela Merkel)

Shame on Peregrine, shame on this site. Your mods would rather shut down allegations based on "racism" than having had an interest in the Bin Laden network from before the 1998 embassy bombings.

Zaph

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

Peregrine banned me for saying the attack was a direct result of New Labour under Blair from 1997- 2010. Before it became apparent that the attack occurred at the entrance, rather than the ticket only area, I speculated that, due to how suspicious a lone, bulky dressed man would look travelling alone to an artist primarily beloved by female teens, pre teens and such and would surely be challenged by security, that the attacker may have been female- only 3 weeks before a mother and daughter alleged ISIS suicide team had been arrested and charged in London. He accused me of scaremongering.

If I can maybe explain my statement:

In the late 80's into the 90's, the UK granted asylum to numerous Islamist radicals. Omar Bakri and Abu Qatada were two (Abu Hamza had previously arrived on a student visa)

After attacks on Paris in 1995, the French and US governments were incensed that the UK was allowing radical clerics like the aforementioned three, among many others, an effective free rein to preach and recruit in London, in return for them not calling for violence against Britain. It lead to the French and US security services labelling London Londonistan. After all, the father of Salman Abedi fled Libya because he was aligned with an Al Quaeda linked group and his life was in danger from the anti Islamist forces of Col Gaddafi. Essentially, you could turn up in London, say I despise your way of life, and explain that my own government despises my own views and will kill me. It's akin to a Nazi war criminal fleeing post war Germany and being granted political asylum in Israel.

There was a butterfly effect. The radical clerics influenced young, at the time, men like Anwar Choudhry, Richard Reid, Zacarias Mousaooi and so forth. The last two went on suicide missions, the first stayed at home and decided to spread his influence.

If not for UK government kow towing in the 80's and 90's, Salman's AQ sympathetic father would not have been granted asylum in Britain.

His son would therefore not have been born in the UK in 1994.

If it were not for New Labour political correctness, Salman, his father, his family, would have been deported from the UK after it became apparent that his father was affiliated with the LIFG.

That never happened.


22 people died on Monday due to political correctness. Pointing out such has led to a ban from a moderator who can't handle rational debate.

If I said x amount of people had died by suicide due to FF property porn, would I have copped a ban?

I find it ironic today watching the world's most despised by feminist bogeyman (Trumo) on TV with the world's most inadvertent world record breakingl rapist, by the assistance of third parties (Angela Merkel)

Shame on Peregrine, shame on this site.

If you wish to appeal your ban, please do so in the Dispute resolution forum. Feedback is not the place to be justifying the post you were banned for.

WinnyThePoo

22 people died of political correctness?.

That's crass.

C Montgomery Gurns II

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

22 people died of political correctness?.

That's crass.

No, it isn't.

If not for political correctness Islamist recruiters like Hamza and Bakri would have been removed from the UK at the latest post 9/11.

If not for PC Anjem Choudhry would have been stripped of his UK passport and deported to his father's native and of Pakistan.

Salman Abedi's AQ supporting father would have been removed before his family had a chance to grow up in Britain.

Pretty much all the recent attackers were influenced long after 9/11, most of them were children at the time.


Hard left wing politics murdered 22 people in Manchester. The same way they murdered near on 200 in Paris after the attackers sneaked back in within the migrant crisis. The same way Angela Merkel essentially raped hundreds of women on NYE 2015, and thousands more before and since. I am utterly sick when I see left wing celebrities post their ghastly tributes and sympathies on social media about the Manchester attack. Show some respect you utter ghouls FFS and just say nothing.

C Montgomery Gurns II

Zaph wrote: »

If you wish to appeal your ban, please do so in the Dispute resolution forum. Feedback is not the place to be justifying the post you were banned for.

Out of interest, has an appeal ever been upheld and a mod sanctioned?

Zaph

If you people want to argue among yourselves then please take it to PM, but Feedback is not the place for this sort of stuff.

Zaph

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

Out of interest, has an appeal ever been upheld and a mod sanctioned?

Many appeals have been upheld. The DRF is where you can appeal a decision that the mod deemed correct at the time. If the appeal is successful then the action is reversed. I see no particular need to sanction anyone for making what they believed was the right call at the time.

C Montgomery Gurns II

Zaph wrote: »

If you people want to argue among yourselves then please take it to PM, but Feedback is not the place for this sort of stuff.

Does this forum support the covering up of the cause and effect conditions that allowed for a terrorist attack in Manchester?

I wouldn't fancy advertising my business with such a website tbh.

Zaph

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

Does this forum support the covering up of the cause and effect conditions that allowed for a terrorist attack in Manchester?

I wouldn't fancy advertising my business with such a website tbh.

Nobody's asking you to advertise your business here. You have your opinion on the conditions that led to the attack, that doesn't make it fact, it's still only an opinion in the same way that others have theirs. That people are allowed post their opinions doesn't in any way indicate support by Boards for those opinions, no more than it does by allowing you to post your opinion.

C Montgomery Gurns II

Zaph wrote: »

Nobody's asking you to advertise your business here. You have your opinion on the conditions that led to the attack, that doesn't make it fact, it's still only an opinion in the same way that others have theirs. That people are allowed post their opinions doesn't in any way indicate support by Boards for those opinions, no more than it does by allowing you to post your opinion.

But doesn't banning people, and deleting posts, for expressing the opinion that 22 people died for political correctness, for the reasons I explained in detail above, show what the boards policy is?

If I was to start a thread in AH titled "Syrian Refugees Granted Council Housing Within 3 Months of Arrival", it is true, it isn't pub talk or my mate said this, it is there in black and white on RTE that following a 3 month induction Syrian refugees will be moved to permanent accommodation. But how long do you reckon this echo chamber would tolerate such a thread? FFS you mod the Dublin 15 forum. What would you say if I open a thread there about the parents of the kids from this school?

https://www.fiannafail.ie/most-disadvantaged-school-in-west-dublin-refused-deis-status-ff/

Is it forbidden on the Dublin 15 forum to ask how some people who live among families paying off 350K mortgages have made near on zero contribution to the state, live in a cookie cutter same house as you do, and have significantly less overheads?

Zaph

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

But doesn't banning people, and deleting posts, for expressing the opinion that 22 people died for political correctness, for the reasons I explained in detail above, show what the boards policy is?

No, there is no Boards policy, there is merely a moderator who felt that, for whatever reason, you were in breach of the site rules and took the action they deemed appropriate. As I said, you are free to appeal your ban in the DRF, but I'm not getting into the specifics of your ban here.

C Montgomery Gurns II

Zaph wrote: »

No, there is no Boards policy, there is merely a moderator who felt that, for whatever reason, you were in breach of the site rules and took the action they deemed appropriate. As I said, you are free to appeal your ban in the DRF, but I'm not getting into the specifics of your ban here.

If I start a thread on D15 asking how a school populated mostly by the children of foreign nationals has a parental unemployment rate of plus 75 percent, and I ask how these people are affording rent in an area where an average 3 bed is 1500 plus per month, would you allow the thread?

Or does it not fit the narrative?

There are school children in your local schools getting out of bed in Cavan and Westmeath while their familes wait for the market to calm FFS.

Zaph

If you want to appeal your ban, then you have been told what to do. If you don't, then your ban expires in two weeks.

Mark Tapley

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

But doesn't banning people, and deleting posts, for expressing the opinion that 22 people died for political correctness, for the reasons I explained in detail above, show what the boards policy is?

If I was to start a thread in AH titled "Syrian Refugees Granted Council Housing Within 3 Months of Arrival", it is true, it isn't pub talk or my mate said this, it is there in black and white on RTE that following a 3 month induction Syrian refugees will be moved to permanent accommodation. But how long do you reckon this echo chamber would tolerate such a thread? FFS you mod the Dublin 15 forum. What would you say if I open a thread there about the parents of the kids from this school?

https://www.fiannafail.ie/most-disadvantaged-school-in-west-dublin-refused-deis-status-ff/

Is it forbidden on the Dublin 15 forum to ask how some people who live among families paying off 350K mortgages have made near on zero contribution to the state, live in a cookie cutter same house as you do, and have significantly less overheads?

This thread has been running for a couple of weeks - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057739472/1. Probably because it slipped under the radar of rentamob.

Murrisk

Overheal wrote: »

Maybe I'm just being ignorant, American, or both, but I don't get what the IRA, or the Israel-Palestine conflict has to do with the concert bombing.

I think the point of bringing up the IRA is to make the point that Irish people in the UK were unfairly judged based on their actions back then and that the same shouldn't happen to someone now just because they happen to be Muslim. I don't think people are saying that ISIS and the IRA are completely analogous.

Stheno

Murrisk wrote: »

I think the point of bringing up the IRA is to make the point that Irish people in the UK were unfairly judged based on their actions back then and that the same shouldn't happen to someone now just because they happen to be Muslim. I don't think people are saying that ISIS and the IRA are completely analogous.

And that's fine.

What's not fine is when posters with strong pro or anti IRA views then derail the thread with the same old argument and the thread descends into mayhem

Murrisk

Stheno wrote: »

And that's fine.

What's not fine is when posters with strong pro or anti IRA views then derail the thread with the same old argument and the thread descends into mayhem

Yes, I don't think that's the intent of everyone bringing up the IRA though, I think some people are being misunderstood. They are just pointing out that in the fairly recent past, Irish people in the UK were judged because of the actions of a minority.