80% of failed asylum seekers stay

Raycyst

Governments in the west are criminally reckless and negligient.

They have blood on their hands, especially politicans like Angela Merkel.

Civil war seems to be the only solution. The ballot box is fairly useless as it's too slow. Tony Blair for example deliberately increased immigration into Britain in the hope that the next government would be unable to undo his actions.


Anders Brevik could yet be recognised as a hero who saved Norway from destruction. There was no Swedish Anders Brevik and that is why Sweden is in much worse shape today than Norway.

Sweden may not have had a mass murderer like Brevik but it does have large numbers of its own citizens being raped and murdered by immigrants.

RandomName2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, it was one of the lies made up for Brexit.

That's both comforting, and not altogether surprising (if correct).

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Let the people drown you mean. The traffickers don't care either way. They already have their money.

Of course traffickers care. Migrants being picked up by Irish ships is a vital part of the service that the traffickers offer (otherwise the people wouldn't be trafficked into Europe, thereby defeating the purpose of the venture). All I suggest is that Irish ships go to the southern shore (Libya) and not the northern shore (Italy) when dropping off the people they pick up. Preferably if they could then destroy the boats that the migrants had used that would be helpful too.

That's not too outlandish is it? It's like a fire brigade getting a call out about a burglar who has got stuck on razorwire, they come and help him down and let him into the shop he was trying to get into.

end of the road

AnGaelach wrote: »

So why are you enabling human traffickers to do so?

i'm not.

Raycyst wrote: »

Governments in the west are criminally reckless and negligient.

They have blood on their hands, especially politicans like Angela Merkel.

Civil war seems to be the only solution. The ballot box is fairly useless as it's too slow. Tony Blair for example deliberately increased immigration into Britain in the hope that the next government would be unable to undo his actions.


Anders Brevik could yet be recognised as a hero who saved Norway from destruction. There was no Swedish Anders Brevik and that is why Sweden is in much worse shape today than Norway.

Sweden may not have had a mass murderer like Brevik but it does have large numbers of its own citizens being raped and murdered by immigrants.

Governments in the west are not criminally reckless and negligent.

They do not have blood on their hands.

civil war will quickly be crushed and rightly so.

Anders Brevik has all ready been recognised as a hero by far right extremists, however he is nothing but a murdering terrorist piece of filth who hasn't saved norway from anything. he will correctly rot in prison where he belongs, nobody listening to any of the filth he has to say.

Raycyst

People do listen to Anders.

Norwegian politicans speak of 'Swedish conditions' and it is something they want to avoid. What they mean by 'Swedish conditions' is violence and a lack of integration among immigrants.

All of that is down to Anders. If not for Anders then Norway would be in suicide mode like Sweden.


Anders Brevik specifically targeted the children of the ruling Labour Party as he recognised that those children would likely be the next generation of politicans in Norway (due to political dynasties) and he further recognised that they would likely follow their parents politics, i.e they'd be very liberal and they'd be pro-immigration.


So he did what he thought was correct. For Norway. And he doesn't apologise.


As I said, in 100 years time Anders could be held up as a Norwegian hero. Sweden may not exist.

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not.



Governments in the west are not criminally reckless and negligent.

They do not have blood on their hands.

civil war will quickly be crushed and rightly so.

Anders Brevik has all ready been recognised as a hero by far right extremists, however he is nothing but a murdering terrorist piece of filth who hasn't saved norway from anything. he will correctly rot in prison where he belongs, nobody listening to any of the filth he has to say.

just because you type it doesn't mean its true you know

The Oort Cloud

We, and Europe are in troubled waters, and Poland might be as well soon. The citizens of Ireland have no idea what is coming. Once a cultural beauty of old Ireland was so mesmerizing to look at and interact with country-wide, soon it will be a time of unrest, because the muslim belief system is not in any way compatible with Irish culture or native Irish religious beliefs. This forced multiculturalism on us all into Ireland will cause nothing but destruction and negative effects as has been seen in Britain and other countries like Sweden, believe me, Sweden will never be the same again. There is no possible way that any government system of integration will work as we already know by past experiences in this matter in regards to forcing an old ancient collective draconian religious doctrine into a modern society, we passed on from that long ago and are moving ahead in philosophy and real science. Why are we been forced to put up with the reality of going backwards in time when we have come so far ?.

Muslim religious beliefs 'in the case of sharia' will never be excepted on the Island of Ireland, we didn't come this far to go back to this old crazy thinking of burn the witch at the stake, stone your wife/child to death or chop a persons head off for not believing in a ghost of imagination. Once you as a modern country understand the differences with others beliefs, then as a modern country you might respect their beliefs, but when you come to a new modern land and expect the native modern peoples to abide by your ancient methods of which we already went through a few hundred years ago in the past... Then you can leave, it won't be tolerated. What elite mechanism in Brussels created this insane destruction of our modern European states, and why ?. Right now You are witnessing the invasion and future destruction of your homeland and culture.

Fin/

Captain Obvious

You understand that nobody is forcing anyone to be multicultural right? You can stay in your own bubble all you want. Nobody is forcing you to live under Sharia law either.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Captain Obvious

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unless there is some plan to mass indoctrinate the people to Islam I think we are safe.

Raycyst

But you wouldn't object to people using Sharia law to settle disputes would you?

Captain Obvious

Raycyst wrote: »

But you wouldn't object to people using Sharia law to settle disputes would you?

If both of them were happy to do so I don't see why not. They can use a magic 8ball for all I care.

Raycyst

So Sharia can't be prevented. People can choose to mediate disputes using whatever system they wish.

But how is that different from a criminal gang imposing a criminal code of silence upon people?


The people who are forced to subject themselves to the criminal code of silence to avoid repurcussions are not doing so out of choice, even if they may say they are. They are doing so due to a threat, either explicit or implied, that not co-operating would be dangerous for them.


The state needs to protect people from other people who seek to control them or to enslave them. It is derelict to allow either criminals or Muslims to effectively enslave people using social codes like Sharia law or criminal codes of silence.

The Irish Guards will not protect people in the same way that the UK failed to protect people.

Captain Obvious

Raycyst wrote: »

So Sharia can't be prevented. People can choose to mediate disputes using whatever system they wish.

Yes

Raycyst wrote: »

But how is that different from a criminal gang imposing a criminal code of silence upon people?

The people who are forced to subject themselves to the criminal code of silence to avoid repurcussions are not doing so out of choice, even if they may say they are. They are doing so due to a threat, either explicit or implied, that not co-operating would be dangerous for them.

The state needs to protect people from other people who seek to control them or to enslave them. It is derelict to allow either criminals or Muslims to effectively enslave people using social codes like Sharia law or criminal codes of silence.

The Irish Guards will not protect people in the same way that the UK failed to protect people.

The difference is the bit about being forced. There are laws against coercion.

Raycyst

How is it determined that it is a choice in all cases?

If there was a single example of a woman being forced to wear a burka would you consider that oppression?


Our society doesn't accept people in masks in public.

Must our culture change to accomodate the newcomers?

AnGaelach

Captain Obvious wrote: »

If both of them were happy to do so I don't see why not. They can use a magic 8ball for all I care.

You think a father should be allowed to murder his daughter out of honour? Why don't I and someone else live under Brehon Law if that's what we want?

Because that's a stupid fúcking idea. The law applies equally to everyone, that is the point of law. Having your own special law causes chaos and, in the words of Scalia, "each person becomes a law unto themselves".

Pure tashte

Raycyst wrote: »

People do listen to Anders.

Norwegian politicans speak of 'Swedish conditions' and it is something they want to avoid. What they mean by 'Swedish conditions' is violence and a lack of integration among immigrants.

All of that is down to Anders. If not for Anders then Norway would be in suicide mode like Sweden.


Anders Brevik specifically targeted the children of the ruling Labour Party as he recognised that those children would likely be the next generation of politicans in Norway (due to political dynasties) and he further recognised that they would likely follow their parents politics, i.e they'd be very liberal and they'd be pro-immigration.


So he did what he thought was correct. For Norway. And he doesn't apologise.


As I said, in 100 years time Anders could be held up as a Norwegian hero. Sweden may not exist.

It's hard to see how a man you murdered dozens of children will ever be seen as a hero. Although you seem to think he's a bit of a hero yourself.

Captain Obvious

Raycyst wrote: »

How is it determined that it is a choice in all cases?

If there was a single example of a woman being forced to wear a burka would you consider that oppression?

I'd call it illegal.

Raycyst wrote: »

Our society doesn't accept people in masks in public.

Yes it does. No law against it at all.

AnGaelach wrote: »

You think a father should be allowed to murder his daughter out of honour? Why don't I and someone else live under Brehon Law if that's what we want?

You don't seem to understand the concept of choice.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because that's a stupid fúcking idea. The law applies equally to everyone, that is the point of law. Having your own special law causes chaos and, in the words of Scalia, "each person becomes a law unto themselves".

My local golf club has rules for members. Should I tell them to **** off when I break those rules?

AnGaelach

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the concept of choice.

You don't get to choose what laws apply to you.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

My local golf club has rules for members. Should I tell them to **** off when I break those rules?

So you have to accept their rules instead of substituting them with your own? You've just argued my point for me, grma.

Raycyst

You cannot enshrine illegal acts in your system of rules and think it's ok.

A golf club cannot have a rule that your hand is cut off if you play too many shots, nor can the golf club perform any other act that represents a crime, even if the rules you agreed to ostensibly allow for that act.


Sharia law is illegal in many of its rules and determinations. People cannot choose to submit themselves to illegal acts, they are still illegal acts even if you agree to them.


So, a person who agrees to have a dispute mediated under Sharia does not have the right to allow any judgement to be imposed upon them. All judgements must be compliant with the law, and they cannot be discriminatory.

The Police in the UK will not enforce UK laws even when Sharia councils make judgements and rulings which break UK laws.

The police are rightfully criticised for refusing to act.

Multiculturalism simply does not work, by definition.

Enslaving people is a crime.

Raycyst

Pure tashte wrote: »

It's hard to see how a man you murdered dozens of children will ever be seen as a hero. Although you seem to think he's a bit of a hero yourself.

Anders Breivik motivations must be considered.

You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anders has justified his actions in his court case by saying his actions were necessary in order to secure the future of Norway, and his actions were necessary in order to prevent even more loss and death in the future.

It is acceptable in Norwegian law to commit crime in order to prevent crime.

Anders considered that Norwegian politicans were treasonous and that they were refusing to act in the interests of Norway, and in the interests of Norwegians.


Anders Breivik changed the political landscape in Norway. If Sweden ceases to exist in the future as seems possible or even likely and Norway doesn't Anders Breivik could well be the difference.


I read some articles yesterday, (blocked by Three Mobile under their political censorship policy, thank you Three), and Anders was as much against the feminisation of Norway and the feminisation of Norwegian politics as he was against mass immigration of Muslims.


I do agree with Anders that feminisation of politics and of politicans is destroying societies. Breaking into tears is not a virtue.


Do people think the deliberate destruction of your own society is a good thing?

Irish politicans are also treasonous traitors to Ireland.
How can it be changed?


Why are only 20% of failed asylum seekers deported?
Who asked for that?

Why must our society be overrun with criminals while our citizens live and die on the streets?

Richard Hillman

Raycyst wrote: »

Governments in the west are criminally reckless and negligient.

They have blood on their hands, especially politicans like Angela Merkel.

Civil war seems to be the only solution. The ballot box is fairly useless as it's too slow. Tony Blair for example deliberately increased immigration into Britain in the hope that the next government would be unable to undo his actions.


Anders Brevik could yet be recognised as a hero who saved Norway from destruction. There was no Swedish Anders Brevik and that is why Sweden is in much worse shape today than Norway.

Sweden may not have had a mass murderer like Brevik but it does have large numbers of its own citizens being raped and murdered by immigrants.

I said to a friend of mine about 2-3 years ago that with the way Europe is going, there is a distinct possibility that Anders Breivik could leave prison as a hero. Which is an absolutely mental thought just after he did what he did.

We are talking the end of his sentence is 2032, (15 years time). Europe will be a complete and utter cluster**** by 2032. Undoubtedly there will be an armed resistance by then. Could he be the man the unites small national branches to become a europewide army?

There is a dark future ahead. And it is all because a miniscule minority decided to go against all natural human instinct of that we are tribal creatures.

AnGaelach

How people can justify a man's murder of children is beyond me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Raycyst wrote: »

Governments in the west are criminally reckless and negligient.

They have blood on their hands, especially politicans like Angela Merkel.

Civil war seems to be the only solution. The ballot box is fairly useless as it's too slow. Tony Blair for example deliberately increased immigration into Britain in the hope that the next government would be unable to undo his actions.


Anders Brevik could yet be recognised as a hero who saved Norway from destruction. There was no Swedish Anders Brevik and that is why Sweden is in much worse shape today than Norway.

Sweden may not have had a mass murderer like Brevik but it does have large numbers of its own citizens being raped and murdered by immigrants.

Your posts are fcuking insane...

wes

Kamryn Cuddly Numbskull wrote: »

Your posts are fcuking insane...

Isn't the first time, that the far right on boards, have openly supported terrorism. Amazing how it gets a complete pass too.

Also, has 3 thanks too, so not just one person supporting Breviks terror attack either.

Yamanoto

wes wrote: »

Isn't the first time, that the far right on boards, have openly supported terrorism. Amazing how it gets a complete pass too.

Don't recall you ever chastising Nodin & his band of lackeys for precisely the same thing

Raycyst

AnGaelach wrote: »

How people can justify a man's murder of children is beyond me.

Barack Obama authorised numerous drone strikes in countries with which the US is not at war and huge numbers of innocent people have died.

I think people would be clearer on the problem if Barack had used drones to attack terrorists in Ireland, and Irish people had died in the attack.

Innocent people are being killed in drone strikes and those are effectively murders under law.

Yet, Barack can do no wrong according to liberals.

wes

Yamanoto wrote: »

Don't recall you ever chastising Nodin & his band of lackeys for precisely the same thing

I fail to see the relevance of other posters, who aren't posting in this thread. Also, I have no idea which posts your talking about, and honestly I don't think they exist.

The fact remains that in this thread, the one I posted in, there are people who are supportive of far right terror. Astonishing that your first taught, is to ignore that.

Captain Obvious

AnGaelach wrote: »

You don't get to choose what laws apply to you.

No you have to abide only by the rules of the state. You can, however, choose to live under stricter rules.

AnGaelach wrote: »

So you have to accept their rules instead of substituting them with your own? You've just argued my point for me, grma.

Eh, no. Because I can simply leave the club if I don't like the rules. much like a person in Ireland can leave or join whatever religion they want.

Raycyst wrote: »

You cannot enshrine illegal acts in your system of rules and think it's ok.

Nobody has said otherwise

Raycyst wrote: »

A golf club cannot have a rule that your hand is cut off if you play too many shots, nor can the golf club perform any other act that represents a crime, even if the rules you agreed to ostensibly allow for that act.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Raycyst wrote: »

Sharia law is illegal in many of its rules and determinations. People cannot choose to submit themselves to illegal acts, they are still illegal acts even if you agree to them.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Raycyst wrote: »

So, a person who agrees to have a dispute mediated under Sharia does not have the right to allow any judgement to be imposed upon them. All judgements must be compliant with the law, and they cannot be discriminatory.

No, the judgements must be legal under Irish law. You're getting it now.

Raycyst wrote: »

The Police in the UK will not enforce UK laws even when Sharia councils make judgements and rulings which break UK laws.

Pure nonsense.

Raycyst wrote: »

The police are rightfully criticised for refusing to act.

And so they should be if they refused to implement the law. Although you haven't actually shown an example.

Raycyst wrote: »

Multiculturalism simply does not work, by definition.

What definition is that?

Raycyst wrote: »

Enslaving people is a crime.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Raycyst

wes wrote: »

Isn't the first time, that the far right on boards, have openly supported terrorism. Amazing how it gets a complete pass too.

Also, has 3 thanks too, so not just one person supporting Breviks terror attack either.

I'm simply not far right.

I probably just appear that way to you because you're so far left.

I support universal income, legalisation of many drugs, smaller government, increased taxes on corporations, and reduced taxes on income, closed borders, national house building program etc etc.
I'm not ashamed to be nationalist, in my opinion to be otherwise is to betray your country, and if you're a politican, then your betrayal counts as treason, unless you have a clear mandate, which the givernment doesn't have.

wes

Raycyst wrote: »

I'm simply not far right.

You supported a racist mass murdering terrorist. Thats far right

Raycyst wrote: »

I probably just appear that way to you because you're so far left.

Being against the murder of children, is not far left..........

Raycyst wrote: »

I support universal income, legalisation of many drugs, smaller government, increased taxes on corporations, and reduced taxes on income, closed borders, national house building program etc etc.

None of that changes your support for a terrorist like Breivik,

Raycyst wrote: »

I'm not ashamed to be nationalist, in my opinion to be otherwise is to betray your country, and if you're a politican, then your betrayal counts as treason, unless you have a clear mandate, which the givernment doesn't have.

So, if someone disagrees with your its treason :rolleyes:. So what do you propose as punishment for treason then?

Raycyst

I said.
Multiculturalism simply does not work, by definition.

Captain Oblivious said.
What definition is that?


ok, for example.
The Borg as a culture can't be reasoned with. It is assimilate or die. Although the Borg are fictional this example does illustrate the point; that not all cultures can peacefully co-exist.
If not all cultures can peacefully co-exist then peaceful multiculturalism is not guaranteed.

No logical errors so far.
My point is proven.
Peaceful multiculturalism is not guaranteed.



Multiculturalism only works if each of the sub-cultures is amenable to being part of a larger multi-culture.


How are disputes to be avoided?
For example, in one culture obscuring your face may be frowned upon or it may even be a crime, in another culture displaying your face may be frowned upon, or it may even be a crime.

Reconcilition between those two positions is not possible, by definition.

Therefore, we have once again proved that (peaceful) multiculturalism may not be possible, by definition.


You certainly cannot prove that (peaceful) multiculturalism is possible.

Yamanoto

wes wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance of other posters, who aren't posting in this thread.

Yet t'was yourself who made mention of a pattern you've perceived among certain sections of the wider Boards community.

wes wrote: »

Also, I have no idea which posts your talking about, and honestly I don't think they exist.

You know, the ones where all the boyos thought the Provo's were fab.

Odd if you're claiming you'd somehow missed 'em, considering you've apparently picked up on what is, by some considerable margin, markedly less support for far right terrorism on this site.

wes wrote: »

The fact remains that in this thread, the one I posted in, there are people who are supportive of far right terror. Astonishing that your first taught, is to ignore that.

If we're talking about the same attention-seeking chap, he'll be gone soon & indeed, I'm not sure why anyone's engaging with such a twit in the first place.

Raycyst

I had said.
I'm simply not far right.

Wes said.
You supported a racist mass murdering terrorist. Thats far right


But I didn't support Anders. I understand his descriptions of his own motivations which is different. I'm also prepared to debate the issue but that doesn't necessarily mean I support the side I'm debating on behalf of.


Anders Breivik is a patriot. Are all patriots to be impugned now?


I don't hate Eskimoes. But if the Irish Gov want to bring 1,000,000 Eskimoes to Ireland I will speak out against that policy; not because I hate Eskimoes but because Ireland cannot cope with 1 million newcomers.

Being against a policy doesn't indicate hatred.

JaCrispy

end of the road wrote: »

that's life. life's not fair. the world isn't fair. i wish it was different but it isn't.

AnGaelach wrote: »

If life and the world isn't fair, why should we let any of them in or send development aid? Surely if life isn't fair, it's their problem?

end of the road, answer the question.

Raycyst

There are at least two types of unfairness; natural unfairness and political unfairness.


example of natural unfairness.. Why are some people taller and better looking than others?

example of political unfairness.. Why do non-citizen foreigners get houses while Irish people have to live and die on the streets?


Politicans putting foreigners first is despicable. Zappone is a disgrace given that she's prepared to spend 285,000 on foreign children while Irish children are living on the street or in hotels.

The Irish government should be putting Irish people first, not fake syrians, or fake asylum seekers.

end of the road

Raycyst wrote: »

People do listen to Anders.

Norwegian politicans speak of 'Swedish conditions' and it is something they want to avoid. What they mean by 'Swedish conditions' is violence and a lack of integration among immigrants.

All of that is down to Anders. If not for Anders then Norway would be in suicide mode like Sweden.


Anders Brevik specifically targeted the children of the ruling Labour Party as he recognised that those children would likely be the next generation of politicans in Norway (due to political dynasties) and he further recognised that they would likely follow their parents politics, i.e they'd be very liberal and they'd be pro-immigration.


So he did what he thought was correct. For Norway. And he doesn't apologise.


As I said, in 100 years time Anders could be held up as a Norwegian hero. Sweden may not exist.

nobody listens to him apart from far right extremists. norway would have been just as fine as it is now without a terrorist murdering children. Anders Brevik is a terrorist, a murderer, a scumbag. he now correctly rots in prison, nobody able to hear his ranting. he lost.

Raycyst wrote: »

How is it determined that it is a choice in all cases?

If there was a single example of a woman being forced to wear a burka would you consider that oppression?


Our society doesn't accept people in masks in public.

Must our culture change to accomodate the newcomers?

our "culture" isn't being changed to accommodate anyone.

Raycyst wrote: »

Anders Breivik motivations must be considered.

You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anders has justified his actions in his court case by saying his actions were necessary in order to secure the future of Norway, and his actions were necessary in order to prevent even more loss and death in the future.

It is acceptable in Norwegian law to commit crime in order to prevent crime.

Anders considered that Norwegian politicans were treasonous and that they were refusing to act in the interests of Norway, and in the interests of Norwegians.


Anders Breivik changed the political landscape in Norway. If Sweden ceases to exist in the future as seems possible or even likely and Norway doesn't Anders Breivik could well be the difference.


I read some articles yesterday, (blocked by Three Mobile under their political censorship policy, thank you Three), and Anders was as much against the feminisation of Norway and the feminisation of Norwegian politics as he was against mass immigration of Muslims.


I do agree with Anders that feminisation of politics and of politicans is destroying societies. Breaking into tears is not a virtue.


Do people think the deliberate destruction of your own society is a good thing?

Irish politicans are also treasonous traitors to Ireland.
How can it be changed?


Why are only 20% of failed asylum seekers deported?
Who asked for that?

Why must our society be overrun with criminals while our citizens live and die on the streets?

his motives were considered and found to be hogwash. that's exactly what they are.
he is a racist. a far right extremist. his rantings in his trial were rightly shown the contempt they deserve. he commited his actions to kill anyone he thought might be in favour of having brown and black people in the country. his actions failed on that score as they are still there and are still coming.
murdering children isn't acceptable in Norwegian law i'm afraid.
norway's state has nothing to do with a far right, murdering, extremist terrorist who changed nothing he wanted to change. who rots in jail. who most do not listen to. who lost.

wes

Yamanoto wrote: »

Yet t'was yourself who made mention of a pattern you've perceived among certain sections of the wider Boards community.

You apparently expect to read every single post on here, or something? Sorry, but that is absurd.

Yamanoto wrote: »

You know, the ones where all the boyos thought the Provo's were fab.

Yet, no link provided still.

Yamanoto wrote: »

Odd if you're claiming you'd somehow missed 'em, considering you've apparently picked up on what is, by some considerable margin, markedly less support for far right terrorism on this site.

Not odd at all, as I don't read every single post on boards. Again, no links to the offending posts.

Yamanoto wrote: »

If we're talking about the same attention-seeking chap, he'll be gone soon & indeed, I'm not sure why anyone's engaging with such a twit in the first place.

Except as per the thanks, other posters seem to agree.

wes

Raycyst wrote: »

I had said.
But I didn't support Anders. I understand his descriptions of his own motivations which is different. I'm also prepared to debate the issue but that doesn't necessarily mean I support the side I'm debating on behalf of.


Anders Breivik is a patriot. Are all patriots to be impugned now?

You called a terrorist a patriot. How is that not support? You called a terrorist a patriot and as such you are the one impugning patriots.

Your speak positively of him, several times at this point. Your taking the piss at this stage.

Again, you speak postively of a terrorist who murdered children:

Raycyst wrote: »

Civil war seems to be the only solution. The ballot box is fairly useless as it's too slow. Tony Blair for example deliberately increased immigration into Britain in the hope that the next government would be unable to undo his actions.


Anders Brevik could yet be recognised as a hero who saved Norway from destruction. There was no Swedish Anders Brevik and that is why Sweden is in much worse shape today than Norway.

So first you suggest civil war, and decry democracy as being too slow. Pretty straight forward support for violence.

Secondly, you say Brevik, who lets remember murdered children, could be recognized as a hero.

Also, you accuse people of treason, and didn't answer how treason as you call it should be punished.

You then in this post refer, to Brevik, who again I remind your is a terrorist who murdered children, as a patriot.

Seems pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

jackofalltrades

Anders Brevik could be recognised as a hero. :eek: Really???

AnGaelach

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No you have to abide only by the rules of the state. You can, however, choose to live under stricter rules.

Eh, no. Because I can simply leave the club if I don't like the rules. much like a person in Ireland can leave or join whatever religion they want.

The "stricter rules" include a clause that don't let you leave, or did you miss the entire "death to apostates" part?

Captain Obvious

AnGaelach wrote: »

The "stricter rules" include a clause that don't let you leave, or did you miss the entire "death to apostates" part?

And such a clause would not be legally enforceable in this country.

AnGaelach

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And such a clause would not be legally enforceable in this country.

You are purporting to give legal weight to sharia law. You are essentially trying to create a parallel society existing within the State, like some kind of a fúcking eeijit.

The law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally.

Yamanoto

wes wrote: »

Yet, no link provided still.

Not necessary, as well you know

wes wrote: »

Except as per the thanks, other posters seem to agree.

See this has been endorsed by end of the road.

Kudos.

Nagnata

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Anders Brevik could be recognised as a hero. :eek: Really???

Some people recognise Fedel Castro and Che Guevara as heroes. Both of whom were evil murdering filt, so anything is possible.

Captain Obvious

AnGaelach wrote: »

You are purporting to give legal weight to sharia law.

Where did I do that?

wes

Yamanoto wrote: »

Not necessary, as well you know

So I take they don't exist then.

AnGaelach

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Where did I do that?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104083223&postcount=162

Raycyst

It's extremely difficult for the state to know if a person is making a choice or if that person is being forced into a choice.

The burka ban in public places really exposes that problem.

Is wearing the burka a choice or not?
For some people the answer appears to be that it is a choice and for others it appears to be imposed upon them.


If a criminal gang moves into an area and says 'no red clothing please', and people stop wearing red clothing, are those people making a choice?, or are they merely being pragmatic?

If the consequences of wearing red clothing is that you are shot dead by criminals many people won't see it as a choice at all. They'll say it's a no-brainer to wear non-red clothing.

Of course, the real problem is the existence of criminals who are in a position to impose their will.

Captain Obvious

AnGaelach wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104083223&postcount=162

You obviously misunderstood. I never suggested it be legally enforceable, my suggestion was that if two people are happy to settle a dispute using the principles of Sharia law I see no problem with it. It's only an agreement between them though. If either one decided they didn't want to be bound by it they could use the mechanisms of the state.

AnGaelach

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You obviously misunderstood. I never suggested it be legally enforceable, my suggestion was that if two people are happy to settle a dispute using the principles of Sharia law I see no problem with it. It's only an agreement between them though. If either one decided they didn't want to be bound by it they could use the mechanisms of the state.

That's absolute nonsense. You are aware that simple tradition can itself become law? It's an unwritten contractual obligation. If you allow them to settle their disputes through a "non-legal" Sharia law eventually it is given the power of law. It's the same way that a teacher is expected to correct work in their own hours/uncompensated, it has become traditional.

You are playing with fire when you allow people to settle their disputes outside of the State's judicial process, and yet you seem not to understand the gravity of what you are supporting.