Incident on London Underground

Abu94

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, Abu94... One last time:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104699985&postcount=486

Respond? You made the point.. I'd like to see your answer to this.

No I do not agree because Ireland is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Why would they bother with it when I doubt they even know Ireland exists, it's that irrelevant. Did you see any ISLAMIC terrorist attacks in Switzerland? No except some madman with a chainsaw which isn't related to islam. Why not? Switzerland is white and european country just like every other European country and it's an easy target since it's in the middle of Europe and has a free movement of people just like a regular EU member. But the fact is that it's neutral same as Ireland so terrorist don't bother with it so why would they bother with Ireland? When Ireland is so irrelevant. If you are telling me that terrorists don't care about which country to bomb as long as it's not islamic then why Switzerland isn't bombed when it's right in the middle? Ireland will not be bombed just like Switzerland won't because they don't, why would terrorists bother with these countries when it wouldn't have as much as an impact as blowing up UK and France which directly support the killings. And that stupid airport in Ireland used by USA is as irrelevant as Ireland itself.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I agree with you... I grew up in a family that regularly wheeled out the abuses done by the British. Thankfully, they've mellowed a lot in the last decade.. (and I'm from near Galway, not Irish/American. although I'm guessing that was an example?)

but at the same time, I have seen nothing that suggests that Islamic countries in the M.East or groups like ISIS would be content to leave the west alone, should they grow strong enough to impose their will on us.

They hold all westerners accountable for what some countries like the US or Britain (or the crusades) did to 'them'. Who is to blame doesn't really matter. There is always some other offence to justify their attacks. The past is not dead to them. And Ultimately, should peace occur, economic prosperity arise, they will still dwell on their religion and that will mean conflict with us.

I agree, I'm just saying that in my view it's clearly not about religion or Western lifestyles, it's about revenge. This whole "they hate our way of life" thing is a bullsh!t piece of propaganda dreamed up by the US State Department after 9/11 - even when Bin Laden himself openly stated on video that his grievance with the United States was entirely based on US support for the Israeli government. And if we want to avoid repeating these mistakes in future generations, we have to acknowledge that the 20th century paradigm of exploitation and imposition on weaker countries simply cannot be allowed to happen again in supposedly civilised nations.

EDIT: To give an example - those who fronted the Iranian hostage crisis may have been Muslims, but there's absolutely no legitimate suggestion that they were motivated by religion. They were motivated by America's support for a dictator. This is the kind of sh!te the West needs to stop doing, going into the future - stop screwing with other countries' domestic politics just because we have something to gain from it.

Dyr

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree, I'm just saying that in my view it's clearly not about religion or Western lifestyles, it's about revenge. This whole "they hate our way of life" thing is a bullsh!t piece of propaganda dreamed up by the US State Department after 9/11 - even when Bin Laden himself openly stated on video that his grievance with the United States was entirely based on US support for the Israeli government. And if we want to avoid repeating these mistakes in future generations, we have to acknowledge that the 20th century paradigm of exploitation and imposition on weaker countries simply cannot be allowed to happen again in supposedly civilised nations.

EDIT: To give an example - those who fronted the Iranian hostage crisis may have been Muslims, but there's absolutely no legitimate suggestion that they were motivated by religion. They were motivated by America's support for a dictator. This is the kind of sh!te the West needs to stop doing, going into the future - stop screwing with other countries' domestic politics just because we have something to gain from it.

It's really funny when the islamic nutters make it clear that this is about global conquest for their god that useful idiots like you still spout on about imperialism

Are you some kind of condescending racist? Can you not take these peoples words are face value?

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree, I'm just saying that in my view it's clearly not about religion or Western lifestyles, it's about revenge. This whole "they hate our way of life" thing is a bullsh!t piece of propaganda dreamed up by the US State Department after 9/11 - even when Bin Laden himself openly stated on video that his grievance with the United States was entirely based on US support for the Israeli government. And if we want to avoid repeating these mistakes in future generations, we have to acknowledge that the 20th century paradigm of exploitation and imposition on weaker countries simply cannot be allowed to happen again in supposedly civilised nations.

EDIT: To give an example - those who fronted the Iranian hostage crisis may have been Muslims, but there's absolutely no legitimate suggestion that they were motivated by religion. They were motivated by America's support for a dictator. This is the kind of sh!te the West needs to stop doing, going into the future - stop screwing with other countries' domestic politics just because we have something to gain from it.

In your view maybe. But that is what isis themselves say

In the new issue of ISIS’ English-language propaganda magazine Dabiq, the group makes its position on the role of Western foreign policy in the Middle East abundantly clear: it is a "secondary" factor.

While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree, I'm just saying that in my view it's clearly not about religion or Western lifestyles, it's about revenge. This whole "they hate our way of life" thing is a bullsh!t piece of propaganda dreamed up by the US State Department after 9/11

Err, Nope, I disagree. The hatred of our way of life exists simply because we have a series cultures that are essentially polar opposites of the world they want to create. I've been to a number of other M.East countries, where I had discussions with a variety of people who love what they believe Western culture represents (which is reason for those in power to hate us), and those who consider our way of life an insult to God. That it was their duty to save us from the depravity of our culture.

Admittedly I didn't meet any of the foaming mouth extremists... I wasn't in that open an environment, but these were people in University Educational circles. Students, associates and professors proclaiming their views on western culture.

- even when Bin Laden himself openly stated on video that his grievance with the United States was entirely based on US support for the Israeli government. And if we want to avoid repeating these mistakes in future generations, we have to acknowledge that the 20th century paradigm of exploitation and imposition on weaker countries simply cannot be allowed to happen again in supposedly civilised nations.

Totally Agreed.

EDIT: To give an example - those who fronted the Iranian hostage crisis may have been Muslims, but there's absolutely no legitimate suggestion that they were motivated by religion. They were motivated by America's support for a dictator. This is the kind of sh!te the West needs to stop doing, going into the future - stop screwing with other countries' domestic politics just because we have something to gain from it.

I'm not suggesting that all Islamic terrorists are motivated to attack the west for religious reasons... There's plenty of revenge (as you said), and also for political reasons too.

The point is that even if the West stepped back today, removed all forces from the M.East, stopped messing with their societies, the attacks would not stop. They believe that they have justification to attack. That's not going to go away until either they're killed, their motivations forcibly reprogrammed, or they succeed in their agenda. We cannot change the past. It's done. We have to face the fact that these people feel justified to attack Europe and they will continue regardless of what western nations do.

I was against the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam and take the alleged "WMDs" there. I was against their actions in Afghanistan. I've always been against Western involvement in a miltary or intelligence capacity in the M.East (Africa too). They don't want us there and have never wanted us there. I was fine with them warring with each other and casting baleful looks at Israel. We had no justification for messing with the stability of the region.

Although saying all that, I do believe that Islamic M.East countries with such an intertwined religious presence would ultimately lead to war with the west. They have a religious/cultural belief that constantly seeks to revert to the more aggressive aspects of Islam and the spread of that Religion across the globe. [Every time an Islamic country in the M.East reaches a degree of peace and prosperity, their religion tries to pull them back into barbarism, first towards their own people, and then to their neighbours.]

Abu94

Abu94 wrote: »

No I do not agree because Ireland is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Why would they bother with it when I doubt they even know Ireland exists, it's that irrelevant. Did you see any ISLAMIC terrorist attacks in Switzerland? No except some madman with a chainsaw which isn't related to islam. Why not? Switzerland is white and european country just like every other European country and it's an easy target since it's in the middle of Europe and has a free movement of people just like a regular EU member. But the fact is that it's neutral same as Ireland so terrorist don't bother with it so why would they bother with Ireland? When Ireland is so irrelevant. If you are telling me that terrorists don't care about which country to bomb as long as it's not islamic then why Switzerland isn't bombed when it's right in the middle? Ireland will not be bombed just like Switzerland won't because they don't, why would terrorists bother with these countries when it wouldn't have as much as an impact as blowing up UK and France which directly support the killings. And that stupid airport in Ireland used by USA is as irrelevant as Ireland itself.

Did i touch a nerve? Such anger about a country that's irrelevant.

It is sad though.. that you couldn't answer the points I made... instead just going on a rant of dissing Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

Bambi wrote: »

It's really funny when the islamic nutters make it clear that this is about global conquest for their god that useful idiots like you still spout on about imperialism

Are you some kind of condescending racist? Can you not take these peoples words are face value?

I am taking their words at face value. Osama Bin Laden, for example, explicitly blamed US support for Israeli policies as the reason behind his 9/11 scheme. One of the 7/7 London bombers explicitly pointed to the Iraq War as the reason for his fury against Britain in a video released after the bombings. Isis fighters have made numerous rants against Western foreign policy since their campaigns began.

Are some of the motivated by religious zealotry? Absolutely! Are all of them motivated by it? Definitely not.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Err, Nope, I disagree. The hatred of our way of life exists simply because we have a series cultures that are essentially polar opposites of the world they want to create. I've been to a number of other M.East countries, where I had discussions with a variety of people who love what they believe Western culture represents (which is reason for those in power to hate us), and those who consider our way of life an insult to God. That it was their duty to save us from the depravity of our culture.

Admittedly I didn't meet any of the foaming mouth extremists... I wasn't in that open an environment, but these were people in University Educational circles. Students, associates and professors proclaiming their views on western culture.



Totally Agreed.



I'm not suggesting that all Islamic terrorists are motivated to attack the west for religious reasons... There's plenty of revenge (as you said), and also for political reasons too.

The point is that even if the West stepped back today, removed all forces from the M.East, stopped messing with their societies, the attacks would not stop. They believe that they have justification to attack. That's not going to go away until either they're killed, their motivations forcibly reprogrammed, or they succeed in their agenda. We cannot change the past. It's done. We have to face the fact that these people feel justified to attack Europe and they will continue regardless of what western nations do.

I was against the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam and take the alleged "WMDs" there. I was against their actions in Afghanistan. I've always been against Western involvement in a miltary or intelligence capacity in the M.East (Africa too). They don't want us there and have never wanted us there. I was fine with them warring with each other and casting baleful looks at Israel. We had no justification for messing with the stability of the region.

Although saying all that, I do believe that Islamic M.East countries with such an intertwined religious presence would ultimately lead to war with the west. They have a religious/cultural belief that constantly seeks to revert to the more aggressive aspects of Islam and the spread of that Religion across the globe. [Every time an Islamic country in the M.East reaches a degree of peace and prosperity, their religion tries to pull them back into barbarism, first towards their own people, and then to their neighbours.]

I agree with all of this. I am merely pointing out that the West makes future radicalisation 100% inevitable by giving the religious nutters at the top of this organisation legitimate grievances among young people to exploit in order to recruit them. I highly doubt many teenagers (which is when radicalisation often begins) are all that interested in religious zealotry, but I can guarantee you that if a teenager has spent his whole life seeing his ancestral homeland under attack, it's not going to be difficult to persuade him to join a violent cause which involves targeting those responsible.

Hypothetical analogy for you here. Imagine you're a 15-year old Irish American, a son or daughter of people who emigrated because of the famine. But imagine that the famine is happening now, today - in the full view of the 24/7 news cycle, with all the virality of the social media age, and with all of the direct, raw, unedited first hand accounts which accompany that age. Imagine you've spent your entire life seeing, through numerous and relentless forms of media coverage, how Britain's greed policies are literally causing the mass starvation of millions of your ethnic group, bearing in mind that you're only a few generations at most removed from Ireland.

Can you tell me with absolute certainty that if some IRA recruiter (if they had existed at this time) had approached you and told you that you could be a valued member of the resistance, taking revenge against Britain and possible even helping to force a political policy change by pummelling them into submission, that your 15-year old self wouldn't have accepted the offer? Because I certainly can't. I remember the rage which coursed through 15 year old Hatrickpatrick's veins when they showed us Michael Collins and The Wind That Shakes the Barley in school, and when we went further back in history and learned about the famine and why it happened. You came out of lessons like that as a hormonal and angsty 15 year old lad dearly wishing you had the chance to beat the ever living sh!t out of some of the British government and landlords of the time who were responsible for that stuff - and this is at least a century later, far more in the case of the famine. I can honestly say that it's far more likely than not that I would have very readily and gladly accepted the opportunity to take revenge, especially if that accompanied a supposed opportunity to possibly force actual policy changes so that Ireland would get a better deal. I don't think many people can look back on their unstable teenage selves and give an iron clad guarantee that they wouldn't have. And the problem with these attacks is that even if 99 out of 100 Middle Eastern descended kids don't do it, it only takes a small handful to wreak massive amounts of carnage.

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am taking their words at face value. Osama Bin Laden, for example, explicitly blamed US support for Israeli policies as the reason behind his 9/11 scheme. One of the 7/7 London bombers explicitly pointed to the Iraq War as the reason for his fury against Britain in a video released after the bombings. Isis fighters have made numerous rants against Western foreign policy since their campaigns began.

Are some of the motivated by religious zealotry? Absolutely! Are all of them motivated by it? Definitely not.

So you only take their words at face value when they align with your own opinion? Isis have clearly stated that military action by the West is not their primary motive for killing people, that their main motive is religion - ie they want to kill anyone who does not "embrace Islam" and that even if all Western forces were pulled out of the middle East and elsewhere they would not stop

Dyr

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am taking their words at face value. Osama Bin Laden, for example, explicitly blamed US support for Israeli policies as the reason behind his 9/11 scheme. One of the 7/7 London bombers explicitly pointed to the Iraq War as the reason for his fury against Britain in a video released after the bombings. Isis fighters have made numerous rants against Western foreign policy since their campaigns began.

Are some of the motivated by religious zealotry? Absolutely! Are all of them motivated by it? Definitely not.

Osama was killed in 2011, The late lamented Osama has nothing to do with ISIS

I know the instinct of the terminally PC is that non whites can't be motivated by anything but oppression by the evil west but ISIS are actually so explicit in their aims that its hilarious to see the cognitive contortionism people will perform to accommodate them.

Abu94

Abu94 wrote: »

No I do not agree because Ireland is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Why would they bother with it when I doubt they even know Ireland exists, it's that irrelevant. Did you see any ISLAMIC terrorist attacks in Switzerland? No except some madman with a chainsaw which isn't related to islam. Why not? Switzerland is white and european country just like every other European country and it's an easy target since it's in the middle of Europe and has a free movement of people just like a regular EU member. But the fact is that it's neutral same as Ireland so terrorist don't bother with it so why would they bother with Ireland? When Ireland is so irrelevant. If you are telling me that terrorists don't care about which country to bomb as long as it's not islamic then why Switzerland isn't bombed when it's right in the middle? Ireland will not be bombed just like Switzerland won't because they don't, why would terrorists bother with these countries when it wouldn't have as much as an impact as blowing up UK and France which directly support the killings. And that stupid airport in Ireland used by USA is as irrelevant as Ireland itself.

While I'd like to think that Ireland isn't a target, we were mentioned in an ISIS propaganda video a while back.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree with all of this. I am merely pointing out that the West makes future radicalisation 100% inevitable by giving the religious nutters at the top of this organisation legitimate grievances among young people to exploit in order to recruit them.

Agreed, although I hestitate strongly to accept the term legitimate grievances.. depending on what part of history, you can always find something to support the desire for war.

But I would also point out that our response should be a zero tolerance perspective to those who take up arms against us. Justifications don't matter. The only thing that matters is the protection of our people and simply defending waiting for attacks to occur is always a losing strategy. Accept that the US/UK ****ed up the world, move on, and work out a winning strategy that doesn't hesitate to end the problem.

What that answer is I couldn't say... but I'm sure between the populations of the US and Europe we have enough brainpower to figure it out. Although perhaps by avoiding the unresearched/ill-prepared short time planning that has been used so far.

I highly doubt many teenagers (which is when radicalisation often begins) are all that interested in religious zealotry, but I can guarantee you that if a teenager has spent his whole life seeing his ancestral homeland under attack, it's not going to be difficult to persuade him to join a violent cause which involves targeting those responsible.

I wouldn't be too sure. I was once a very devout Christian. I can remember that certainty in my faith.. The young are often the greatest believers in a religion especially when matched with preachers/clerics/priests who have the charisma or knowledge of human nature to manipulate results. I don't have that certainty abbout God now... but that's how it goes for many people. You face a crisis and either you come out with no faith or you come out with stronger faith than before. And at its roots Islam is a very aggressive religion with Muhammad being a warrior.. kinda helps when your religious icon encourages the idea of warfare in the name of God.

But Yes, any teenager who has seen his home burned, and his family killed or scattered, will likely be a willing audience to any 'militia' recruiter.

Hypothetical analogy for you here.

Wasn't any real need to write that since I already said I grew up in a very republician family. A very republican and deeply religious family. Very Old testament (although my mother was more of a Jesus fan) , and holding grudges is something we were encouraged to develop.. So I do understand your reasoning. Although once again, I don't really get the whole Irish American thingy. Our own Irish history is enough for many to hate the English.. (we have our own propaganda and indoctrination of the youth) and if it wasn't for a couple of marriages to English women in my family, we'd still be growling at the English. :rolleyes: It's difficult to hate what is in your living room being pleasant to you, and being unlike any of the stories you were told as a child/teen.

But, yes, I would have joined up if my country was at war.. or occupied by a foreign power. I still would, and probably die rather quickly.. war is a young persons business..

A Little Pony

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/909543450462359553
So they arrest one of the suspects, a refugee. But Liam Cunningham wanted boat loads of them to just walk into Ireland. What a d*ckhead he is.

xckjoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Kinda why I mentioned its not for me to decide. Ok.....

That's the problem. Everyone rants about how they should "just" arrest all the terrorists yet when asked how they pass the buck and can't come up with any ideas. That's someone elses job.

Most western governments are spending a lot of time and money trying to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists already. How is the issue, not what.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

That's the problem. Everyone rants about how they should "just" arrest all the terrorists yet when asked how they pass the buck and can't come up with any ideas. That's someone elses job.

The problem is that any idea we (posters) have will be torn apart as being too extreme since it's currently not part of the more "liberial/pc" environmnent we live in. Suggesting anything that removes/limits the 'rights' of refugees, migrants, religious groups etc tends to put you into a crapstorm of criticism and abuse. There's very little in the way of constructive criticism on the internet these days..

And as for passing the buck... we are talking about the very government agencies that are supposed to think of these things and propose changes to improve our security, lifestyles, etc. Not necessarily the politicians that shift and change every election, but the people working permanently in our security and intelligence departments.

xckjoo

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is that any idea we (posters) have will be torn apart as being too extreme since it's currently not part of the more "liberial/pc" environmnent we live in. Suggesting anything that removes/limits the 'rights' of refugees, migrants, religious groups etc tends to put you into a crapstorm of criticism and abuse. There's very little in the way of constructive criticism on the internet these days..

That's my point. It's not constructive criticism to say "catch all the criminals". No more than it is to say "don't discriminate". Both sides are equally as guilty of this type of rhetoric.

And as for passing the buck... we are talking about the very government agencies that are supposed to think of these things and propose changes to improve our security, lifestyles, etc. Not necessarily the politicians that shift and change every election, but the people working permanently in our security and intelligence departments.

The problem is that these immigrants are people too and no matter how you feel about them, allowing their rights to be eroded is only opening the door for everyones rights to be eroded. If you're happy for that to happen, that's one thing. But we should all be extremely aware of what that might bring. It took a long time to get where we are and I personally don't want to throw that away because I'm afraid.

A Little Pony

You don't need to throw anything away, just say they aren't getting in and that's that.

silverharp

any reason given why the first one hasn't been named?

xckjoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

You don't need to throw anything away, just say they aren't getting in and that's that.

Who? All foreigners or just refugees? What about all the 2nd or 3rd generation kids that become radicalized? Return them to a country they've never been to? How do we determine if they become radicalized? Just deport them all to be sure?

That's not even broaching the subject of how you stop them. Italy has been trying for a long time without much success.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

That's my point. It's not constructive criticism to say "catch all the criminals". No more than it is to say "don't discriminate". Both sides are equally as guilty of this type of rhetoric.

You're missing my point.... and..

The problem is that these immigrants are people too and no matter how you feel about them, allowing their rights to be eroded is only opening the door for everyones rights to be eroded. If you're happy for that to happen, that's one thing. But we should all be extremely aware of what that might bring. It took a long time to get where we are and I personally don't want to throw that away because I'm afraid.

And there you go. You've just given the standard response against any suggestion of changing the current system towards immigrants.. and it's an absolute. There's no leeway on that stance.

IMO the truth is that if we want to more than simply wait for attacks to occur, then we will need to reduce their rights until such a time that they can prove their innocence/loyalty (which is why I'm not a fan of multiculturalism) or that the threat has passed. And that's why you won't get serious recommendations on how to stop the attacks... there's no point writing a long thought-out plan for dealing with Islamic terrorism (within Europe), because it'll just be shot down immediately with that one statement.

Instead, the only answers remaining are how we can resolve the issue external to Europes borders, and then it'll still come down to they're people too and we can't treat them less than we would other Europeans. (because it would revert to your statement once again)

Galwayguy35

Is it true the bomber was a Syrian?

A Little Pony

xckjoo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

You don't need to throw anything away, just say they aren't getting in and that's that.

Who? All foreigners or just refugees? What about all the 2nd or 3rd generation kids that become radicalized? Return them to a country they've never been to? How do we determine if they become radicalized? Just deport them all to be sure?

That's not even broaching the subject of how you stop them. Italy has been trying for a long time without much success.

The "refugees". Why take any in? Why are Japan or China not taking any? Why should Ireland take any refugees?

A Little Pony

BREAKING: Man arrested in connection with Parsons Green tube bomb 'named as Yahyah Farroukh, 21, from Syria'.

The_Kew_Tour

xckjoo wrote: »

That's the problem. Everyone rants about how they should "just" arrest all the terrorists yet when asked how they pass the buck and can't come up with any ideas. That's someone elses job.

Most western governments are spending a lot of time and money trying to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists already. How is the issue, not what.

So your solution is?

silverharp

A Little Pony wrote: »

BREAKING: Man arrested in connection with Parsons Green tube bomb 'named as Yahyah Farroukh, 21, from Syria'.

that's not breaking

xckjoo

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing my point.... and..



And there you go. You've just given the standard response against any suggestion of changing the current system towards immigrants.. and it's an absolute. There's no leeway on that stance.

The exact opposite. The current system is completely broken so I'm all open to suggestions for change.

IMO the truth is that if we want to more than simply wait for attacks to occur,

You know that already happens don't you? The likes of MI5/6 are constantly preempting attacks, but they can't catch them all.

then we will need to reduce their rights until such a time that they can prove their innocence/loyalty (which is why I'm not a fan of multiculturalism) or that the threat has passed.

Again this already happens. Refugees have all kinds of restrictions on them when they come to a country (work, movement, voting, etc.). Are you suggesting there should be extra restrictions? We could potentially keep them locked up until it's proven, but that's more likely to push them towards radicalization instead of away from it.

And that's why you won't get serious recommendations on how to stop the attacks... there's no point writing a long thought-out plan for dealing with Islamic terrorism (within Europe), because it'll just be shot down immediately with that one statement.

Is that the reason or is it because it's a complex issue without a simple solution?

Instead, the only answers remaining are how we can resolve the issue external to Europes borders, and then it'll still come down to they're people too and we can't treat them less than we would other Europeans. (because it would revert to your statement once again)

Well we already treat them "less" than Europeans since they don't have the same rights as Europeans do. Most people are okay with that. You rarely see people protesting about voting rights for refugees, and I don't know of anyone that thinks they should be immediate (although I'm sure they're out there ).

Look, I'm fairly neutral in all this. I'm just sick of people moaning about liberals suppressing their opinions and excessive Political Correctness, while not going to the effort of actually thinking things through. It's the same ****e, just from a different point of view.

xckjoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

The "refugees". Why take any in? Why are Japan or China not taking any? Why should Ireland take any refugees?

Because we're part of the EU. We have to tow the line with other European counties. Part of the deal.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

So your solution is?

I don't have one. Don't pretend to have one. Don't pretend to even know how to start addressing it. But I can admit that.

The_Kew_Tour

xckjoo wrote: »

Because we're part of the EU. We have to tow the line with other European counties. Part of the deal.



I don't have one. Don't pretend to have one. Don't pretend to even know how to start addressing it. But I can admit that.

Thought so

xckjoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Thought so

Still waiting on yours.....

The_Kew_Tour

xckjoo wrote: »

Still waiting on yours.....

::pac: