Discussion in 'Community' started by slightly_unhinged, Jan 7, 2015.
I’m still waiting for this to happen
My personal favorite
special love to "DerryLondon"
Why the **** would the Irish want England?
We can't even give Norn Ireland away, no way does Eire want to touch England.
bragging rights and open space to build football stadiums, burning effigies of Thatcher, and refugee resettlement. I would be fine displacing England and settling Syrians and Palestinians there.
If nothing else throw a party in Buckingham and turn Trafalgar square into an immortalization of the crimes of british imperialism
hey punching still requires touching
You can be a thoughtful person sometimes. That's why this is an exceptionally dumb and lazy rant. You literally didn't even respond to what I wrote.
I never once mentioned the Unabomber. I mentioned the "underwear" bomber. A Nigerian native captured over half a decade after 9/11. I explicitly mentioned his acknowledged contact with Al-Qaeda. You really have no excuse here.
You are also substantively wrong. People stopped going to Guantanamo a long time ago. The issue there is existing/persisting detainees. Multiple "terrorism" cases have, in the post-9/11 world, been tried in the civilian court systems, and are sitting in civilian jails. Your understanding that a terrorism charge automatically equates to suspension of rights is factually wrong.
Being an advocate for something doesn't just mean barking on Star Wars websites and posting dog pictures. Do some research and learn what you are talking about. @vncredleader
It is not factually wrong to say we have used terrorism to suspend human rights. you literally are saying "some civilian courts" as if that somehow covers most let alone all cases. We get it, muslims having conditional human rights is something you are ok with, just say it and stop the charade and "umm aktually that is factually wrong cause we sometimes treat them like humans"
even when they get trials they are rarely fair, and the term terrorism is used to sway the jury unfairly as HRW points out
what do you call Abu Ghraib then? no really what the hell is this if not removing the human rights of a person because they are a terrorist?
I dont care about your thoughts on advocacy, you throw aside the rights of Muslims every time it is convenient, to the point of somehow insisting that the Unabomber being in Colorado means THIS was not the dehumanization and ignoring the human rights of Muslims because they are "terrorists". I have no time nor will to argue if exceptions make the suspension of human rights under the patriot act ok or no longer exist. Your absolutist bs is dismissive and I hope that image is burned into your mind every time you think of the word "factually" because some anecdote. These people's lives are not rhetorical devices or something that can be minimized because terrorists have been tried in courts before. If you cannot see how some does not mean all, and exceptions do not remove THIS, then I have no clue what to say to you
Again, I have never addressed Muslim rights writ broadly. You kept repeating the formulation that terrorism charges necessarily led to people being deprived of their rights. I pointed out this was wrong. It is. There are multiple senior policymakers that advocate for a different approach. There are multiple cases of people who have moved successfully through civilian courts. The entire premise of your argument is ill-considered. Put some effort into making a point that addresses A) the points others have actually made B) any degree of nuance beyond some rant you saw on Twitter/Youtube.
I would submit that hate crimes are a type of terrorism. A subset. All hate crimes are terrorism.
A hate crime committed in secret, and covered up, with hopes that no one ever find out, is not terrorism.
I think that's a pretty rare kind of hate crime, though I will grant you that exception. The vast majority of hate crimes are meant to instill fear in more than just the victim, and that is terrorism.
My problem with that standard is that sometimes there is no political content. If all someone is saying is "I don't think your race/ethnicity/sex/religion should exist" that's not really a policy position. That's just saying you want to murder a whole group. Terrorism targets an idea (and anyone who is even passively associated with it) but hate crimes target groups of people for their very identity.
I think there are two fundamental differences in how Americans and Europeans view terrorism and hate crime. The first one is that hate crime and hate speech is, from what I know, part of most European national laws, while in the US my view is that there are a lot of people who claim that freedom of speech trumps everything else. That means that hate crime is used more in a European context, and for things that wouldn't necessarily hold up as hate crimes in the US. The other is that terrorism has been around a lot in Europe ever since the 1970s. And most of the time it has been either nationalist terrorists, like the IRA and ETA, or political, like RAF in the 1970s but their legacy definitely lingered on. There is definitely a problem in that it's easy to apply the terrorism label to any crime committed by a muslim as a terrorist attack, but the terrorism is being used when other attacks are carried through. I don't quite agree that Sweden isn't calling anti-muslim attacks terrorism, since attacks against mosques and synagogues have definitely been called terrorist attacks as well. There is one thing which abel is used legally though, and another what media picks up on, and they are definitely better in painting terrorism as a religious problem right now.
I think a lot of that divide also comes from who is more openly at "war" with terror. When you have no enemy combatants or concepts to war on you are more likely to examine these things in a marginally more healthy manner
A reason for the Troubles never being deemed a war was to deny the IRA the status of combatants because of what that entailed legally.
Maybe, in hindsight, the UK should have done an Israel, invaded Eire and bombed the crap out of Dublin. Not that it would have worked. Instead N. Ireland has been improved and stabilised for the last 23 years due to political engagement. And it worked until moron populist Brexit politicians decided it was all "fine" and "solved" - it's not.
Well, England, and later the UK, tried to subjugate Ireland on a number of occasions, including wiping out a third of the population during Cromwell's time, and ultimately it just stiffened resolve amongst Gaels to be rid of them. I always find it supremely ironic, that Britain's most 'troublesome' colony was right next door.
Irish unification was never realistic during the troubles; partly because a violent solution was never going to work; but also because nationalists in the north were in the minority, and there was a lack of appetite in the Republic for such a goal based on violent means. Today? Nationalists are now the majority, albeit not a huge one. One of the most interesting shifts is a more amenable attitude towards the Republic amongst traditionally antagonistic groups. It probably helps that the south is now the more economically buoyant part of the land, and Ireland as a whole, with its relatively young population, has become much more progressive in recent years. Let's not forget, for example, that Ireland voted to legalise gay marriage by popular vote before anywhere else in the world. Times have changed.
Of course dyed in the wool Orangemen will never see it that way, and, despite populist views in the US to the contrary, the main obstacle to Irish unification is most likely amongst the more intransigent elements in Northern Ireland, not Britain. A lot of British people I've spoken to over the years, would happily be shot of it; not least many who, like me, remember the worst of The Troubles.
And now we have Brexit. Dear God, all that hard work for peace could be unravelled in a matter of weeks.
Imagine being remembered as the underpants bomber?
I mean tbf Ireland gain independence through violence in the first place. Britain has tried an Israel, importing more people and making conditions so bad that Irish Catholics and republicans will leave. A lot of the still burning fires for unification come from just how brutally the prior attempts got put down, and the republic willing to help or not has not mattered since they opened that first volley of british artillery upon their own countrymen
And the peace is unstable so long as Britain still has a queen who defends the murderers on Bloody Sunday.
only one of the monsters was even prosecuted when reexamined this year. Even without Brexit the refusal of Britain to really deal with its colonial past or hold itself accountable for murders that happened in living memory is sickening. It is deeply rooted, just look at the poppy controversy for footballers who dont want to celebrate men who bombed their families
You're aware the Queen says what she's told to by the PM, right? The last five years have not been good ones where nationalism is concerned, which influences towards a 'wasn't the Empire great' mindset. It wasn't but try getting the likes of Johnson to admit that, as he's very of the White Man's Burden school of thought.
Not quite sure what you're referring to in terms of importing people to N. Ireland - people don't tend to move there, unless you're talking of 3-4 centuries back, then all manner of crap likely went down. But the attitude to N. Ireland as something worth having now? Don't think that's been around for the entirety of my lifetime, maybe it was different in the earlier half of the 20th century.
What's really scary right now is the Brexit attitude that if N. Ireland goes up in flames, it'll all be contained there - it won't be.
She does not have to, nor does she have to exist for that matter. The point is it permeates British culture, that fact that yinz have a monarch, and that they say what a PM wants them to, and they hold dominion over other nations is not normal. That reminder of monarchy is not something people tend to like even if it is just a figurehead. The inbred descendent of the people who raped and pillaged your land until a century ago having any say or importance is gonna be unsettling. Not to mention of course the UK being involved in war mongering and the suppression of people like Palestinians who currently less oppressed than in the 80s but still empathetic Irish Republicans are gonna be uncomfortable assisting in. The "wasn't empire great?" mindset never left or even minimized, just became less pertinent. America had that in the 90s, we never for a second doubted that we decide who lives and dies, but thinking of ourselves as an empire was pointless cause hey it is the end of history. but then....well you know what went down in 2001. Suddenly the nationalism sparks back up and what is implicit becomes explicit again
Holding Norther Ireland I think for the English has more to do with clinging to empire nostalgia than anything practical. No need for a naval base right there anymore, they have not use Belfast as a world-renowned shipbuilding city for decades.
blimey , he's having a go at Liz now!
See what none of you realize is I am secretly pro Stuart, abolishing the old monarchy is all according to plan
As long as the proper order of things is restored, ie. the Kingdom of England in personal union under and ruled by the Kingdom of Scotland, I'll be content...
I am game if you wanna do a reverse Hundred Years War. results-wise, not the whole mass mass MASS death thing