INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: ZEGH8578 on September 03, 2011, 08:13:04 PM
-
it was very creepy
dreamt that a military coup had happened, of the explicitly fascistic kind, prompting systematic genocides around the country.
dreaming of flight scenes, getting into a small car, then a crowded bus
fleeing to a hut in the mountains, getting away from populated places in general. people passing out small arms, hunting weapons, and the sensation of impending doom, since we were all "targeted" for elimination
towards the end of the dream, we separate into smaller and smaller groups, untill i am completely by myself, on my way on foot, into the woods, going for sweden
creepy dream
but in the back of my mind, i think... in every society there ARE people who want this, who want military dictatorship, who want coups, and who want genocides.
following breivik's xenophobic massacre on utøya, all parties got a lot of renewed support, mostly the leftist ones, but surprisingly, many of the far right parties also got renewed support: people who actually aggree with massacres, and who actually hope for a fascist regime within our lifetime.
/musings :]
-
Never put much real meaning into dreams, but looked on an interpretation site and got this from the two major points of your dream.
"To dream that you are being hunted indicates that you are being overwhelmed by life's challenges."
"To dream that you are alone indicates feelings of rejection. You may be feeling that no one understand you. "
-
Never put much real meaning into dreams, but looked on an interpretation site and got this from the two major points of your dream.
"To dream that you are being hunted indicates that you are being overwhelmed by life's challenges."
"To dream that you are alone indicates feelings of rejection. You may be feeling that no one understand you. "
i dream about this, because i think about it a lot.
im not curious about interpretations and stuff, because i know why i dream what i dream :D these are topics i allready have on my mind
but dreaming about it, "being involved in it", almost like in a movie, made me think about it again, when i woke up :]
-
im not curious about interpretations and stuff,
Too bad.
"To see the military in your dream signifies rigid authority and emotional repression. Perhaps you need to be more disciplined
If you have served with the military, then this dream may represent your actual life experiences and memories."
-
im not curious about interpretations and stuff,
Too bad.
"To see the military in your dream signifies rigid authority and emotional repression. Perhaps you need to be more disciplined
If you have served with the military, then this dream may represent your actual life experiences and memories."
still, no :D
i know dreams stem from the subconcious, but theres no common formula. my experiences are unique to me.
this dream comes from my daytime worries about growing neo-fascist tendencies in europe, and my underlying worry that theyll actually come to power, and the worst-case scenarios that may very well come to become reality.
its not like the jews of the 2nd polish republic could close their eyes and go "this isnt real, this isnt real" cus suddenly there it was, crispy clear, and totally real, bullet in the neck
i just think we... safe westerners should keep in mind - we should be wary. there is no guarantee that everyone prefers peace, multicultural societies, hand-in-hand-ness. there are many who want to destroy and kill. maybe not a high percentage, but when countries have milllions of people as a default, even a small percentage becomes high numbers :I
-
Just giving you a hard time, and know dreams are just residuals from the day. Still having some fun with that site though. Like this one:
"To dream that you are in or walking through the forest signifies a transitional phase. Follow your instincts. Alternatively, it indicates that you want to escape to a simpler way of life. You are feeling weighed down by the demands of your life. "
-
Just giving you a hard time, and know dreams are just residuals from the day. Still having some fun with that site though. Like this one:
"To dream that you are in or walking through the forest signifies a transitional phase. Follow your instincts. Alternatively, it indicates that you want to escape to a simpler way of life. You are feeling weighed down by the demands of your life. "
bastard :D
but yeah, i "love" those interpretations as well,
especially since most of them tend to be applicable to most people anyway, "you feel a bit insecure at times" "WOW I DO :O"
"you might be a bit stressed out lately" "OMG ITS SPOT ON :O"
-
It means you smoke too much pot. :zoinks:
-
It means you smoke too much pot. :zoinks:
*slap*
:M
-
(http://www.thinkso.com/img/work/arm/arm_logotype_01.jpg)
-
(http://www.thinkso.com/img/work/arm/arm_logotype_01.jpg)
you allready stated (with pride), that you dont give a rats ass about foreign affairs.
i do care about politics, and foreign affairs.
i am better than you.
:)
-
I believe in A, thus making me better than you because you believe in B.
-
(http://www.thinkso.com/img/work/arm/arm_logotype_01.jpg)
you allready stated (with pride), that you dont give a rats ass about foreign affairs.
i do care about politics, and foreign affairs.
i am better than you.
:)
Congratulations.... you're better than someone on the interwebs...what's your next move General Razorbeard your highness? :autism:
-
(http://www.thinkso.com/img/work/arm/arm_logotype_01.jpg)
That guy should holding a joint. :zoinks:
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
-
Fucking maths, how do they work?
-
idunno
something about numerical values in conflict and harmony
-
idunno
something about numerical values in conflict and harmony
asha m ahana a ma hguaha n na a ass a aissi
-
i need more money for weeed
but i havent got my government check! >:(
damn government they give me money but i'm all but wheeeeeen?!?
why no computer work! FUCKING COMPUTER!
oh well, at least i'm better than all of you :M
-
I'm glad I don't do weed. :zoinks:
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
your nose isnt brown enough yet?
"I DO SOMETHING W MY LIFE!!!"
and i dont?
once again - im not your friend, i dont TELL you what i do and what i dont, and im not gonna start. The more you push me about how much you do w your life compared to me, the more your gonna be digging yourself down. You dont know me. Go masturbate :)
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
your nose isnt brown enough yet?
"I DO SOMETHING W MY LIFE!!!"
and i dont?
once again - im not your friend, i dont TELL you what i do and what i dont, and im not gonna start. The more you push me about how much you do w your life compared to me, the more your gonna be digging yourself down. You dont know me. Go masturbate :)
My point is , how can you claim you are better than someone for "Not giving a shit about politics" when you yourself just sit around and whine?
I don't really care I just find your claim utterly hypocritical.
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
your nose isnt brown enough yet?
"I DO SOMETHING W MY LIFE!!!"
and i dont?
once again - im not your friend, i dont TELL you what i do and what i dont, and im not gonna start. The more you push me about how much you do w your life compared to me, the more your gonna be digging yourself down. You dont know me. Go masturbate :)
My point is , how can you claim you are better than someone for "Not giving a shit about politics" when you yourself just sit around and whine?
I don't really care I just find your claim utterly hypocritical.
what do you know about what i do?
why is it any of your concern?
this thread is about a dream, and schleed felt like "trolling" it, and you came running to hi-five him.
i never "whined" about my government, in fact, im very happy with how it works. naturally, i get a bit "sour" whenever payment fucks up, because it means i go hungry for two days and stuff. but fine. next time, ill fucking celebrate.
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
your nose isnt brown enough yet?
"I DO SOMETHING W MY LIFE!!!"
and i dont?
once again - im not your friend, i dont TELL you what i do and what i dont, and im not gonna start. The more you push me about how much you do w your life compared to me, the more your gonna be digging yourself down. You dont know me. Go masturbate :)
My point is , how can you claim you are better than someone for "Not giving a shit about politics" when you yourself just sit around and whine?
I don't really care I just find your claim utterly hypocritical.
what do you know about what i do?
why is it any of your concern?
this thread is about a dream, and schleed felt like "trolling" it, and you came running to hi-five him.
i never "whined" about my government, in fact, im very happy with how it works. naturally, i get a bit "sour" whenever payment fucks up, because it means i go hungry for two days and stuff. but fine. next time, ill fucking celebrate.
Running to high five him? no actually I just thought you were acting like a monumental twat when you said:
you allready stated (with pride), that you dont give a rats ass about foreign affairs.
i do care about politics, and foreign affairs.
i am better than you.
:)
I just find that utterly hypocritical and idiotic.
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
your nose isnt brown enough yet?
"I DO SOMETHING W MY LIFE!!!"
and i dont?
once again - im not your friend, i dont TELL you what i do and what i dont, and im not gonna start. The more you push me about how much you do w your life compared to me, the more your gonna be digging yourself down. You dont know me. Go masturbate :)
My point is , how can you claim you are better than someone for "Not giving a shit about politics" when you yourself just sit around and whine?
I don't really care I just find your claim utterly hypocritical.
what do you know about what i do?
why is it any of your concern?
this thread is about a dream, and schleed felt like "trolling" it, and you came running to hi-five him.
i never "whined" about my government, in fact, im very happy with how it works. naturally, i get a bit "sour" whenever payment fucks up, because it means i go hungry for two days and stuff. but fine. next time, ill fucking celebrate.
Running to high five him? no actually I just thought you were acting like a monumental twat when you said:
you allready stated (with pride), that you dont give a rats ass about foreign affairs.
i do care about politics, and foreign affairs.
i am better than you.
:)
I just find that utterly hypocritical and idiotic.
i get that.
but i respond to twatness with twatness. he came to troll my thread, just to be a twat, so i twatted back at him.
i also get that you blindly support everything he does and says, so:
you didnt react to him trolling my thread
but MY response to his _trolling_, in MY thread, you had to care a whole deal about.
so...
are you done caring soon?
-
pfff, of course i am better
person a: brags about not having opinions (opinions are gathered by research, knowledge searching)
person b: has opinions (research, knowledge searching)
its just math:
i am better.
Not maths more idiocy.
I personally don't give a fuck about politics as does Schleed....Schleed goes to college and (I think) has a job , I will be going to college soon.... we both actually DO something with our lives , what exactly do you do that makes you better than us?
Oh yeah , you whine and bitch about a government which gives you money to buy weed, and then when you don't have enough money to buy food , you bitch about how little money you have and how teh governments is evil.
Whatever. ::)
your nose isnt brown enough yet?
"I DO SOMETHING W MY LIFE!!!"
and i dont?
once again - im not your friend, i dont TELL you what i do and what i dont, and im not gonna start. The more you push me about how much you do w your life compared to me, the more your gonna be digging yourself down. You dont know me. Go masturbate :)
My point is , how can you claim you are better than someone for "Not giving a shit about politics" when you yourself just sit around and whine?
I don't really care I just find your claim utterly hypocritical.
what do you know about what i do?
why is it any of your concern?
this thread is about a dream, and schleed felt like "trolling" it, and you came running to hi-five him.
i never "whined" about my government, in fact, im very happy with how it works. naturally, i get a bit "sour" whenever payment fucks up, because it means i go hungry for two days and stuff. but fine. next time, ill fucking celebrate.
Running to high five him? no actually I just thought you were acting like a monumental twat when you said:
you allready stated (with pride), that you dont give a rats ass about foreign affairs.
i do care about politics, and foreign affairs.
i am better than you.
:)
I just find that utterly hypocritical and idiotic.
i get that.
but i respond to twatness with twatness. he came to troll my thread, just to be a twat, so i twatted back at him.
i also get that you blindly support everything he does and says, so:
you didnt react to him trolling my thread
but MY response to his _trolling_, in MY thread, you had to care a whole deal about.
so...
are you done caring soon?
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
-
[...]
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
can you believe i predicted a reply just like this?
and i allready imagined responding something like "okay, so the lesson learned is: schleed gets to post anything, anywhere, for pure twattyness, and nobody gets to respond to him, cus squid will chirn 3 pages of debate out of it"
but believe it or not, this is getting on my nerves, so... im gonna enjoy my ice coffee, and go play a computer game. cya later!
-
[...]
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
can you believe i predicted a reply just like this?
and i allready imagined responding something like "okay, so the lesson learned is: schleed gets to post anything, anywhere, for pure twattyness, and nobody gets to respond to him, cus squid will chirn 3 pages of debate out of it"
but believe it or not, this is getting on my nerves, so... im gonna enjoy my ice coffee, and go play a computer game. cya later!
Ok your magnificence I apologise for criticising your sheer genius. :worship:
:wanker:
-
my dreams latley have all been too real for me to handle. it must be all the drugs i've done
-
:yawn:
-
my dreams latley have all been too real for me to handle. it must be all the drugs i've done
weed muffles my dreams
-
[...]
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
can you believe i predicted a reply just like this?
and i allready imagined responding something like "okay, so the lesson learned is: schleed gets to post anything, anywhere, for pure twattyness, and nobody gets to respond to him, cus squid will chirn 3 pages of debate out of it"
but believe it or not, this is getting on my nerves, so... im gonna enjoy my ice coffee, and go play a computer game. cya later!
Ok your magnificence I apologise for criticising your sheer genius. :worship:
:wanker:
fuck off you little bitch. you didnt "criticize", all you did was rush in here to defend schleed, who needs no defending. in other words, your sucking his dick.
and when your done, you proceed to attack my lack of a job, and my drug habits. your a little asshole suckup, and the fact that you go through such lengths to suck schleeds cock, speaks volumes of the lack of character you inhabit.
i am better than you too, you little prick. you have no value as a human.
-
[...]
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
can you believe i predicted a reply just like this?
and i allready imagined responding something like "okay, so the lesson learned is: schleed gets to post anything, anywhere, for pure twattyness, and nobody gets to respond to him, cus squid will chirn 3 pages of debate out of it"
but believe it or not, this is getting on my nerves, so... im gonna enjoy my ice coffee, and go play a computer game. cya later!
Ok your magnificence I apologise for criticising your sheer genius. :worship:
:wanker:
fuck off you little bitch. you didnt "criticize", all you did was rush in here to defend schleed, who needs no defending. in other words, your sucking his dick.
and when your done, you proceed to attack my lack of a job, and my drug habits. your a little asshole suckup, and the fact that you go through such lengths to suck schleeds cock, speaks volumes of the lack of character you inhabit.
i am better than you too, you little prick. you have no value as a human.
U mad bro? :trollface:
-
[...]
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
can you believe i predicted a reply just like this?
and i allready imagined responding something like "okay, so the lesson learned is: schleed gets to post anything, anywhere, for pure twattyness, and nobody gets to respond to him, cus squid will chirn 3 pages of debate out of it"
but believe it or not, this is getting on my nerves, so... im gonna enjoy my ice coffee, and go play a computer game. cya later!
Ok your magnificence I apologise for criticising your sheer genius. :worship:
:wanker:
fuck off you little bitch. you didnt "criticize", all you did was rush in here to defend schleed, who needs no defending. in other words, your sucking his dick.
and when your done, you proceed to attack my lack of a job, and my drug habits. your a little asshole suckup, and the fact that you go through such lengths to suck schleeds cock, speaks volumes of the lack of character you inhabit.
i am better than you too, you little prick. you have no value as a human.
U mad bro? :trollface:
Racist :M
http://gawker.com/5837350/high-schoolers-you-mad-bro-sign-called-racial-intimidation (http://gawker.com/5837350/high-schoolers-you-mad-bro-sign-called-racial-intimidation)
http://community.allhiphop.com/showthread.php?262813-NAACP-claims-u-mad-bro-is-racist (http://community.allhiphop.com/showthread.php?262813-NAACP-claims-u-mad-bro-is-racist)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-naacp-believes-you-mad-bro-is-racial-intimi (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-naacp-believes-you-mad-bro-is-racial-intimi)
-
[...]
I don't blindly support everythng Schleed does , I just had an opinion that disagreed with what you said.
Tbh let's get this into perspective Schleed posted a picture.. and you got pretty butthurt about it , then you state you are better than him and that I'm some blind minion of Schleed. :LOL:
can you believe i predicted a reply just like this?
and i allready imagined responding something like "okay, so the lesson learned is: schleed gets to post anything, anywhere, for pure twattyness, and nobody gets to respond to him, cus squid will chirn 3 pages of debate out of it"
but believe it or not, this is getting on my nerves, so... im gonna enjoy my ice coffee, and go play a computer game. cya later!
Ok your magnificence I apologise for criticising your sheer genius. :worship:
:wanker:
fuck off you little bitch. you didnt "criticize", all you did was rush in here to defend schleed, who needs no defending. in other words, your sucking his dick.
and when your done, you proceed to attack my lack of a job, and my drug habits. your a little asshole suckup, and the fact that you go through such lengths to suck schleeds cock, speaks volumes of the lack of character you inhabit.
i am better than you too, you little prick. you have no value as a human.
U mad bro? :trollface:
Racist :M
http://gawker.com/5837350/high-schoolers-you-mad-bro-sign-called-racial-intimidation (http://gawker.com/5837350/high-schoolers-you-mad-bro-sign-called-racial-intimidation)
http://community.allhiphop.com/showthread.php?262813-NAACP-claims-u-mad-bro-is-racist (http://community.allhiphop.com/showthread.php?262813-NAACP-claims-u-mad-bro-is-racist)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-naacp-believes-you-mad-bro-is-racial-intimi (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-naacp-believes-you-mad-bro-is-racial-intimi)
:lol:
-
:popcorn:
-
As a misanthrope, I just don't give a fuck about humanity. But then my internal ego thinks I'm god, while my rationale said GTFO to my ego.
So on that, I'm better than all of you because I say so on the interwebs. Yep, I'm an axiom of my awesomeness. Beat that. :M
Sorry, couldn't resist. :eyelash:
-
As a misanthrope, I just don't give a fuck about humanity. But then my internal ego thinks I'm god, while my rationale said GTFO to my ego.
So on that, I'm better than all of you because I say so on the interwebs. Yep, I'm an axiom of my awesomeness. Beat that. :M
Sorry, couldn't resist. :eyelash:
if it wasnt for my betterness, you wouldnt have been able to be so :M -ish about YOUR betterness, which makes me better than you! also cus i say so :M !
-
My ego, IT HUNGERS, FOR MOAR! Raaaargggh!
-
Would anyone care for a cup of tea and some crumpets?
-
If you honestly think that using political views as an excuse to being a bum means you're superior to others, then frankly I do find you to be a retard. You could at least protest or something outside parliament, at least you'd be doing something slightly less useless.
This is common with a lot of political people, high rate of armchair activism and general laziness. This is especially true for people who call themselves anarchists. An example would be a friend my mother knows for a long time, has very similar political views to you yet is ALSO a lazy armchair activist who contradicts herself by happily getting the dole. Even other political people called her out on it (the ones who actually do shit).
That said, I DO love laziness myself but I don't make excuses for it. I also get benefits from the government for being a spazz. However, because I'm doing both I simply cannot call myself political. Why? I believe there's no point doing it if you're going to make a tremendous hypocrite of yourself.
-
If you honestly think that using political views as an excuse to being a bum means you're superior to others, then frankly I do find you to be a retard. You could at least protest or something outside parliament, at least you'd be doing something slightly less useless.
This is common with a lot of political people, high rate of armchair activism and general laziness. This is especially true for people who call themselves anarchists. An example would be a friend my mother knows for a long time, has very similar political views to you yet is ALSO a lazy armchair activist who contradicts herself by happily getting the dole. Even other political people called her out on it (the ones who actually do shit).
That said, I DO love laziness myself but I don't make excuses for it. I also get benefits from the government for being a spazz. However, because I'm doing both I simply cannot call myself political. Why? I believe there's no point doing it if you're going to make a tremendous hypocrite of yourself.
who says i must _do_ something about every issue i disagree with?
thats just an excuse to _not have opinions_, in my humble opinion.
so there.
we will continue to dissagree.
-
Maybe misunderstanding, but don't see what receiving disability has to do with having a political opinion.
-
What is this about having no opinions? My opinion that politics is bullshit because you can't trust most people regardless, and thus you can't really do any lasting big changes since it expects all people to be of good intentions. For example, tonnes of people press for equality yet it still happens regardless. So really I can't have no opinion, and this is why I'm not political.
Maybe misunderstanding, but don't see what receiving disability has to do with having a political opinion.
My first point is there's little point trying to be political if you do nothing about it. You might aswell be non-political like me.
My second point is that being an anarchist means you're a hypocrite for getting any government benefits, since the whole point of anarchy is to have no government or any involvement with them.
-
i rarely talk _about myself_
but im not "political"
my "title" below my name is an obvious tongue-in-cheek series of deliberate contradictions.
i still observe the world around me, out of a genuine interest to pay attention, and thus, i form opinions.
/enough about me :b
-
Thanks for explaining that, schleed. For a moment it sounded like you were attacking yourself as well as others for receiving benefits. Voting, trying to be informed, and having an opinion, is about as far as a lot of people go in being politically active. That seems acceptable.
-
:yawn:
I am bored by this conversation, so I am better than everyone participating :M
-
What's worse is Christians and Muslime who WANT the end of the world to happen.
-
What's worse is Christians and Muslime who WANT the end of the world to happen.
ah, on topic! :D
yeah, but the end of the world is very big, and to them, its all about jesus. im more worried about those who want "more mundane" wars and atrocities around themselves.
like when breivik killed those 70+ teens at utøya, i wonder hooow many norwegians who thought "fucking awesome" secretly to themselves. out of 5 million, i dont think 5 000 would be too high a potential number.
-
What's worse is Christians and Muslime who WANT the end of the world to happen.
ah, on topic! :D
yeah, but the end of the world is very big, and to them, its all about jesus. im more worried about those who want "more mundane" wars and atrocities around themselves.
like when breivik killed those 70+ teens at utøya, i wonder hooow many norwegians who thought "fucking awesome" secretly to themselves. out of 5 million, i dont think 5 000 would be too high a potential number.
A while back, you seemed quite supportive of the IRAs efforts. Why are their atrocites acceptable?
-
What's worse is Christians and Muslime who WANT the end of the world to happen.
ah, on topic! :D
yeah, but the end of the world is very big, and to them, its all about jesus. im more worried about those who want "more mundane" wars and atrocities around themselves.
like when breivik killed those 70+ teens at utøya, i wonder hooow many norwegians who thought "fucking awesome" secretly to themselves. out of 5 million, i dont think 5 000 would be too high a potential number.
A while back, you seemed quite supportive of the IRAs efforts. Why are their atrocites acceptable?
i tend to "look the other way" to operations that are aimed at countries militaries or police.
im not against resistance, any peoples who have a cause, and choose to do it "by the book", as in, targeting government forces, military bases, etc.
neither the ira or eta has made any significant effort in conciously going after and massacring civilians.
the world isnt all-or-nothing. even some wars are more acceptable than others as well.
-
What's worse is Christians and Muslime who WANT the end of the world to happen.
ah, on topic! :D
yeah, but the end of the world is very big, and to them, its all about jesus. im more worried about those who want "more mundane" wars and atrocities around themselves.
like when breivik killed those 70+ teens at utøya, i wonder hooow many norwegians who thought "fucking awesome" secretly to themselves. out of 5 million, i dont think 5 000 would be too high a potential number.
A while back, you seemed quite supportive of the IRAs efforts. Why are their atrocites acceptable?
i tend to "look the other way" to operations that are aimed at countries militaries or police.
im not against resistance, any peoples who have a cause, and choose to do it "by the book", as in, targeting government forces, military bases, etc.
neither the ira or eta has made any significant effort in conciously going after and massacring civilians.
the world isnt all-or-nothing. even some wars are more acceptable than others as well.
:o :o :o
Seriously dude :o :o :o
You really should try and learn a little bit about the IRA, and more recently, the PIRA and the RIRA before you choose to "look the other way"
The IRA, and its splinter groups have happily targetted civilians, although they have stated that it is better to kill police or army.
The Omagh bombing was a car bomb attack carried out by the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA), a splinter group of former Provisional Irish Republican Army members opposed to the Belfast Agreement, on Saturday 15 August 1998, in Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland.[7] Twenty-nine people died as a result of the attack and approximately 220 people were injured.[3][4][5][6][10] The attack was described by the BBC as "Northern Ireland's worst single terrorist atrocity" and by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as an "appalling act of savagery and evil".[9] Sinn Féin leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness condemned the attack and the RIRA itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing)
The La Mon restaurant bombing was an incendiary bomb attack by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) on 17 February 1978. The target was a hotel/restaurant near Belfast, Northern Ireland. The IRA unit who planted the bomb tried to send warnings by telephone, but was unable to do so until nine minutes before the blast. Twelve people were killed and thirty were injured. It has been described as "one of the worst atrocities" in Northern Ireland during The Troubles.[1][2]
Twelve people were killed[4] (seven of whom were women) and a further thirty were injured, many of them critically. The dead included eleven Protestant civilians and one RUC officer. Most of the victims were members of the Irish Collie Club and the Northern Ireland Junior Motor Cycle Club, which were staging meetings in the room. Some were still receiving treatment 20 years later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing)
The Remembrance Day bombing (also known as the Enniskillen bombing or Poppy Day massacre[1][2]) took place on 8 November 1987 in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. Eleven people were killed when a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb exploded at the town's war memorial (cenotaph) during a Remembrance Sunday ceremony – this was held to honour those who died whilst serving in the British military. The bombing has been described by the BBC as a turning point in "The Troubles", and an attack that shook the IRA "to its core".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_bombing)
The 1996 Manchester bombing was an attack carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) on 15 June 1996 in Manchester, England. The bomb, placed in a van on Corporation Street in the city centre, targeted the city's infrastructure and economy and caused widespread damage, estimated by insurers at £700 million (£1 billion as of 2011). Two hundred and twelve people were injured, but there were no fatalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_bombing_by_IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_bombing_by_IRA)
-
The IRA alerted authorities on their next attack in order to get civilians away from the area, and to try and kill policemen etc. I really don't think they intentionally kill civilians and to be honest I do feel the response by the authorities was deliberately slow in some events. Unionist and British soldiers stationed in N. Ireland were also guilty of killing civilians. Bloody Sunday for example, were British soldiers opened fire on protestors who were angry over discrimination over religion.
That said, I do not support the IRA or other republican movements, just pointing out that the story is not exactly black and white. Atrocities were done on both sides and it shows the subjectivity of what determines who is a terrorist and who isn't.
-
The IRA alerted authorities on their next attack in order to get civilians away from the area, and to try and kill policemen etc. I really don't think they intentionally kill civilians and to be honest I do feel the response by the authorities was deliberately slow in some events. Unionist and British soldiers stationed in N. Ireland were also guilty of killing civilians. Bloody Sunday for example, were British soldiers opened fire on protestors who were angry over discrimination over religion.
That said, I do not support the IRA or other republican movements, just pointing out that the story is not exactly black and white. Atrocities were done on both sides and it shows that the subjectivity of what determines who is a terrorist and who isn't.
The IRA have intentionally targetted civilians. In many cases they did give a telephone warning though.
The post-Good Friday incarnations of the IRA have had absolutely no compunction about murdering "British" civilians, and have openly admitted this. My guess is that this is because the decent, honourable members of the IRA have respected the ceasefire, leaving only the most warped and bitter members to fight a war that no longer exists.
It is the role of the RIRA, and the PIRA that me and Zegh have really been disagreeing on.
There's no point telling me that there is wrong on both sides. I know this. I'm not Irish. I am totally neutral in this "war," and am equally disgusted by both sides. I know that the UVF have also targetted innocent civillians.
The only side I am on is the side of peace.
-
To be honest I just want to nuke N. Ireland off the planet, to get it over and done with. Northerners piss me off for the most part.
(I'll probably keep Newry intact.... for Jessops)
-
To be honest I just want to nuke N. Ireland off the planet, to get it over and done with. Northerners piss me off for the most part.
(I'll probably keep Newry intact.... for Jessops)
I don't blame you. If it wasn't for the fact thaat I had to live in this backwards cesspit of hatred, I'd be happy to nuke the place.
It just makes me want to puke when I read about foreigners who know fuck all about the Republican groups, and have no idea what damage they're doing to this country, talk about being supportive of them.
-
They are a semi-heroic theme in American movies and television :thumbdn:
-
To be honest I just want to nuke N. Ireland off the planet, to get it over and done with. Northerners piss me off for the most part.
(I'll probably keep Newry intact.... for Jessops)
I don't blame you. If it wasn't for the fact thaat I had to live in this backwards cesspit of hatred, I'd be happy to nuke the place.
It just makes me want to puke when I read about foreigners who know fuck all about the Republican groups, and have no idea what damage they're doing to this country, talk about being supportive of them.
At least you have some knowledge on it. Most people in the UK don't even have a clue on what went on, mostly the English. I often hear them claim they were completely innocent and that every Irish person supported the IRA, or look down on it as some silly little skirmish. The British soldiers stationed there, the IRA etc. know right well it was more than some "skirmish", it was outright war that affected everyone.
-
To be honest I just want to nuke N. Ireland off the planet, to get it over and done with. Northerners piss me off for the most part.
(I'll probably keep Newry intact.... for Jessops)
I don't blame you. If it wasn't for the fact thaat I had to live in this backwards cesspit of hatred, I'd be happy to nuke the place.
It just makes me want to puke when I read about foreigners who know fuck all about the Republican groups, and have no idea what damage they're doing to this country, talk about being supportive of them.
At least you have some knowledge on it. Most people in the UK don't even have a clue on what went on, mostly the English. I often hear them claim they were completely innocent and that every Irish person supported the IRA, or look down on it as some silly little skirmish. The British soldiers stationed there, the IRA etc. know right well it was more than some "skirmish", it was outright war that affected everyone.
Scotland is different. We have a huge ammount of Irish from both sides in Scotland, especially in the areas around Glasgow. We have the stupid sectarian marches, and obviously Rangers and Celtic. I think it's always been closer to home for us, than for the English. As well as the fact that the Proddys in N.Ireland, quite insultingly IMO, try and claim their culture to be "Ulster-Scots". :zombiefuck: :thumbdn:
They are a semi-heroic theme in American movies and television :thumbdn:
I know. They were regularly allowed to hold fund-raising events, and enjoyed a reasonable ammount of support in America, up until 9/11 when America decided it didn't like terrorism any more.
Truth is, the "old IRA" started out with a lot of justification. As the years have went by, they've lost their justification. Now, they have none. They're simply stopping an underdeveloped country from properly healing itself.
-
Dream I had nine months ago
I dreamed it was a moonlit night and I was on top of a cliff face. My
back was against a big boulder and my arms were trapped by a large
reinforced shackle that was electronically sealed.
I had a few metres of rock to the edge of the chasm in front of me.
About 30 metres across the chasm in front of me was another cliff face
and a whole heap of military type screaming that I was a werewolf and
about to change.
I was screaming and crying and pleading my innocence. They were all
aiming their machine guns intent on blasting me to bits if or when I
changed and hated me. I suspected they may regardless.
They were waiting for the convulsions and so on.
I cried and pleaded and felt sick. I suppressed everything and kept
fighting against their accusations......and exposing that they were
correct and that the transformation had begun already. I ought to have
been beyond comprehension or making sense or doing anything but
becoming Wolfen. Yet though I felt the changes taking place I kept up
the pretense.
Desperately knowing soon it would be beyond me and they would see my
change and I would be pinned and a thrashing target.
Suddenly and at the final moments one of the guys mumbled and pulled
down a lever and realised by arms...that were now hairy. At that
moment my face changed and I was running in all too suddenly wolf like
legs. I was massive and energetic and muscular beyond belief and
leaped across the chasm. In seconds this took and they were all frozen
with fear seeing this shape spring across 30 metres towards them some
fired erratic aimless blasts.
I woke knowing that they were all as good as dead. The lot of them.
They could do no more to me. They were now the ones scared and they
had every reason to be. I was happy to kill them by tooth and claw in
many instinctual and horrifying way and was free.
Considering what I have been through in the last 4 years or so then
finding the symbolism is not too hard. :)
-
Butterflies,
what response are you hoping for/expecting/fearing?
"oh, well in that case, i completely endorse the attack on civilians!"
my stance is:
ill accept an organizations "right" to attack gvt forces.
i do not accept an organization attacking civilians.
semantics in who is which splinter group, which did what, where and when isnt gonna change that :S
-
Dream I had nine months ago
I dreamed it was a moonlit night and I was on top of a cliff face. My
back was against a big boulder and my arms were trapped by a large
reinforced shackle that was electronically sealed.
I had a few metres of rock to the edge of the chasm in front of me.
About 30 metres across the chasm in front of me was another cliff face
and a whole heap of military type screaming that I was a werewolf and
about to change.
I was screaming and crying and pleading my innocence. They were all
aiming their machine guns intent on blasting me to bits if or when I
changed and hated me. I suspected they may regardless.
They were waiting for the convulsions and so on.
I cried and pleaded and felt sick. I suppressed everything and kept
fighting against their accusations......and exposing that they were
correct and that the transformation had begun already. I ought to have
been beyond comprehension or making sense or doing anything but
becoming Wolfen. Yet though I felt the changes taking place I kept up
the pretense.
Desperately knowing soon it would be beyond me and they would see my
change and I would be pinned and a thrashing target.
Suddenly and at the final moments one of the guys mumbled and pulled
down a lever and realised by arms...that were now hairy. At that
moment my face changed and I was running in all too suddenly wolf like
legs. I was massive and energetic and muscular beyond belief and
leaped across the chasm. In seconds this took and they were all frozen
with fear seeing this shape spring across 30 metres towards them some
fired erratic aimless blasts.
I woke knowing that they were all as good as dead. The lot of them.
They could do no more to me. They were now the ones scared and they
had every reason to be. I was happy to kill them by tooth and claw in
many instinctual and horrifying way and was free.
Considering what I have been through in the last 4 years or so then
finding the symbolism is not too hard. :)
kickass dream! :D
really cool
-
Butterflies,
what response are you hoping for/expecting/fearing?
"oh, well in that case, i completely endorse the attack on civilians!"
my stance is:
ill accept an organizations "right" to attack gvt forces.
i do not accept an organization attacking civilians.
semantics in who is which splinter group, which did what, where and when isnt gonna change that :S
I was calling bullshit on you because you seem happy to sit in your house and shout for terrorism in other parts of the world that you appear to know nothing about, and then get all upset when you get a dose of it in your own country.
TBH, if I'd hoped for any response from you, I'd have hoped that the Norwegian incident would have given you a small chance to see what it's like living under the shadow of terrorism, and maybe changed your mind a little.
-
Butterflies,
what response are you hoping for/expecting/fearing?
"oh, well in that case, i completely endorse the attack on civilians!"
my stance is:
ill accept an organizations "right" to attack gvt forces.
i do not accept an organization attacking civilians.
semantics in who is which splinter group, which did what, where and when isnt gonna change that :S
I was calling bullshit on you because you seem happy to sit in your house and shout for terrorism in other parts of the world that you appear to know nothing about, and then get all upset when you get a dose of it in your own country.
TBH, if I'd hoped for any response from you, I'd have hoped that the Norwegian incident would have given you a small chance to see what it's like living under the shadow of terrorism, and maybe changed your mind a little.
since when do i "seem" happy about terrorism?
what part of what ive said has been bullshit? that i am against terrorism? or that i am against the idea of irish resistance? i explained that to you the first time you "called me out" on it.
i want to know what your theory is:
do i LIKE terrorism, but lie about it to hide something?
do i say i "like ira" just to brag, but have never really read about them?
what exactly are you "calling out"?
whatever you call yourself, IRA, ETA, CIA, IDF:
if you slaughter civilians, i disaprove.
if you keep your attacks targeted at gvt forces, ill let whoever wins win.
^i cant get it any clearer. its not about ira or not ira, but the above. i dont care what they call themselves, just so long as they dont target civilians. i am against evilness :b
-
Butterflies,
what response are you hoping for/expecting/fearing?
"oh, well in that case, i completely endorse the attack on civilians!"
my stance is:
ill accept an organizations "right" to attack gvt forces.
i do not accept an organization attacking civilians.
semantics in who is which splinter group, which did what, where and when isnt gonna change that :S
I was calling bullshit on you because you seem happy to sit in your house and shout for terrorism in other parts of the world that you appear to know nothing about, and then get all upset when you get a dose of it in your own country.
TBH, if I'd hoped for any response from you, I'd have hoped that the Norwegian incident would have given you a small chance to see what it's like living under the shadow of terrorism, and maybe changed your mind a little.
since when do i "seem" happy about terrorism?
what part of what ive said has been bullshit? that i am against terrorism? or that i am against the idea of irish resistance? i explained that to you the first time you "called me out" on it.
i want to know what your theory is:
do i LIKE terrorism, but lie about it to hide something?
do i say i "like ira" just to brag, but have never really read about them?
what exactly are you "calling out"?
I said I called bullshit. I have never called you out.
I'm not fully following what you're asking here.
All I can really tell you is that ages ago you made a comment about being supportive of the modern-day Irish Republican terrorist organizations actions, because you felt that they caused problems for the British government. Or words to that effect (I think).
Sadly, I can't find the quote, although I have looked for it.
You then made this comment yesterday:
yeah, but the end of the world is very big, and to them, its all about jesus. im more worried about those who want "more mundane" wars and atrocities around themselves.
like when breivik killed those 70+ teens at utøya, i wonder hooow many norwegians who thought "fucking awesome" secretly to themselves. out of 5 million, i dont think 5 000 would be too high a potential number.
It pissed me off slightly that you are happy to condone the actions of groups that you appear to know almost nothing about in other countries, but condemn those who "want wars and atrocities around themselves" when it happens in Norway.
-
what happened in norway was, if you havent noticed, a systematic, execution style, one-by-one killing, of almost 80 civilians.
i feel like im forced to spell out, what should go without saying:
i never approve of the slaughter of civilians, be it in norway, ireland, rwanda, canada, chile, uruguay, anywhere. even countries im not mentioning, anywhere. congo, mali, india, china. i never approve of civilians being slaughtered. anywhere. japan. russia. iran, iraq, ... anywhere... anywhere...
i cannot comprehend if you should still be confused after this...
"but you said"
no.
i do NOT approve of the slaughter of civilians. anywhere. i never did.
"but you said"
no.
-
No point supporting groups that have no relation to you, to be honest.
A friend of mine is an IRA/Sinn Fein supporter and had similar talks with him before, he agrees there was atrocities on both sides and in general tries to keep an unbiased view for the most part. However, he still desires Ireland to be a united nation and believes that the struggle for it will eventually get to that goal.
I desire N. Ireland to cut ties from both Ireland and the UK, to become an independent secular nation on it's own right. I think this because N. Ireland's culture is different enough to be considered a separate country, it's neither like the rest of the UK or Ireland. This way it sorts out 3 issues in 1:
- Republicans will be more happier since there are no ties to the UK
- Unionists will be more happier since there are no ties to Ireland
- Secular nation means no favor over Catholics or Protestants, meaning eventually less discrimination, fighting and more people becoming non-religious.
I see little point in Irish people wanting the whole island to themselves, you don't see Scotland complaining because half of Britain isn't theirs despite their aim for independence.
-
No point supporting groups that have no relation to you, to be honest.
A friend of mine is an IRA/Sinn Fein supporter and had similar talks with him before, he agrees there was atrocities on both sides and in general tries to keep an unbiased view for the most part. However, he still desires Ireland to be a united nation and believes that the struggle for it will eventually get to that goal.
I desire N. Ireland to cut ties from both Ireland and the UK, to become an independent secular nation on it's own right. I think this because N. Ireland's culture is different enough to be considered a separate country, it's neither like the rest of the UK or Ireland. This way it sorts out 3 issues in 1:
- Republicans will be more happier since there are no ties to the UK
- Unionists will be more happier since there are no ties to Ireland
- Secular nation means no favor over Catholics or Protestants, meaning eventually less discrimination, fighting and more people becoming non-religious.
I see little point in Irish people wanting the whole island to themselves, you don't see Scotland complaining because half of Britain isn't theirs despite their aim for independence.
I completely agree about N.Ireland becoming independent, and I agree fully with your reasons. Half of the country will always be unhappy as long as we are part of either Ireland or Britain. At least as an independent country, both sides could unite. I don't know why it has hardly ever been suggested as a viable compromise. I think one Unionist party did make the suggestion years ago, but it was as a protest against the British government, rather than a serious proposal.
I don't care whether N.Ireland stays part of Britain, or becomes part of Ireland. I just despise the use of violence from either side. I especially dispair of anyone who still believes in violence after the ceasefire. They aren't helping their own cause, and they're just ensuring that this country will never recover. Sadly, that appears to be their goal. They don't want any prospect of N.I being successful. They'd rather see it ruined if they aren't getting their own way.
-
The problem with the Unionist party who mentioned it was that they wanted it independent, but also Protestant dominated. That will bring the same issues, but would give Ireland/UK an excuse to bomb the fuck out of it if shit happened.
I think it never has been mentioned since because originally it was a Unionist idea and thus giving the wrong idea to people, but my idea would be for it to be secular and non-religious.
-
realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
-
realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.
I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.
From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.
It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.
-
I was reading this with interest last night, and wanted to reply but
fell asleep :zoinks:
Just wanted to comment about Northern Ireland and the fact there
were atrocities on both sides.
The incident that sticks out in my mind is that of 'Bobby Sands' and the 1981 hunger strikes.
All i can say is that the handling of it by the British Government was appalling. Thatcher may well claim victory over the strikers who were demanding they be returned to special category status (political prisoners) but she proved what a cold hearted bitch she really was. She lost her global respect. She made no effort
for a resolution. She could have quite easily made some negotiations - she didn't even try! Her words on the matter
was something like "Crime is crime and can not be political"
I only mention it, as it stands out to me because the hunger strikers were 'suffering' themselves and not, like the bombings,
inflicting it upon any other person.
I think the Prime Minister (Thatcher) had a duty to try and
resolve it but she wasn't interested in peace in Northern Ireland. Her predecessors did at least take the role with some degree of
effort. Even John Major made some effort to negotiate with
the political wings of the IRA. Tony Blair played an even bigger
role and did devote much time on the issues. Thatcher didn't
give two shit's about it. Bitch.
That was all i wanted to say, i have never even been to Ireland
or Northern Ireland so it is difficult for someone like me to understand enough to have a valid opinion. I just felt bad that
our elected Prime Minister did a piss poor job and ten people
died in a prison hospital. :thumbdn:
-
realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.
I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.
From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.
It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.
thats what i am saying dearie.... :D
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.
by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!? :D
finally, my support went for the "ira in general", primarily their goal, and secondarily their use of force to achieve it. Again, read: force, without reading "civilian massacres". as many civilians as has died (over 1500), just as many soldiers have died. to me, it "goes without saying" that one must condemn the civilian losses, but someone are also "doing it right", when they take the fight where it "ought to be", in a battlefield with soldiers.
if you understood me as specifically supporting that specific group, im not even sure who the hell they are, apart from being one of many ira splinter-groups.
i just never added "btw i oppose the targeting of civilians!", cus i find it redundant :]
i guess ill add a lot of stuff around the forum...
"hi how are ya! btw i oppose civilian massacres! i did finish college, squid! ive had two jobs, three if you count half a year at the science museum. i dont smoke weed all day or even every day. i wrote 6 books, working on a 7th. i have plans for the future, believe it or not. when i say i have no friends, i exaggerate, i have a few friends. i dont recieve welfare per se, but disability payments."
/rant...
-
I was reading this with interest last night, and wanted to reply but
fell asleep :zoinks:
Just wanted to comment about Northern Ireland and the fact there
were atrocities on both sides.
The incident that sticks out in my mind is that of 'Bobby Sands' and the 1981 hunger strikes.
All i can say is that the handling of it by the British Government was appalling. Thatcher may well claim victory over the strikers who were demanding they be returned to special category status (political prisoners) but she proved what a cold hearted bitch she really was. She lost her global respect. She made no effort
for a resolution. She could have quite easily made some negotiations - she didn't even try! Her words on the matter
was something like "Crime is crime and can not be political"
I only mention it, as it stands out to me because the hunger strikers were 'suffering' themselves and not, like the bombings,
inflicting it upon any other person.
I think the Prime Minister (Thatcher) had a duty to try and
resolve it but she wasn't interested in peace in Northern Ireland. Her predecessors did at least take the role with some degree of
effort. Even John Major made some effort to negotiate with
the political wings of the IRA. Tony Blair played an even bigger
role and did devote much time on the issues. Thatcher didn't
give two shit's about it. Bitch.
That was all i wanted to say, i have never even been to Ireland
or Northern Ireland so it is difficult for someone like me to understand enough to have a valid opinion. I just felt bad that
our elected Prime Minister did a piss poor job and ten people
died in a prison hospital. :thumbdn:
I oppose terrorism and violence on both sides. I am certainly not a Unionist by any stretch of the imagination. I am strictly neutral on whether N.I should be part of Britain or Ireland.
The discussion I am having with Zegh is because of a much earlier post of his, where I felt he was being supportive of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups current activities. And then complained a day or two ago "im more worried about those who want "more mundane" wars and atrocities around themselves," in relation to the Utoya attack. I felt it was hypocritaical to be supportive of terrorism in other countries, and then complain when it happens in your own.
Please understand. To be opposed to the actions of the IRA does not mean that you support the "Loyalist side." It does not mean that you think there was a "good," and a "bad" side during the troubles.
The people who commit the terrorist attacks now, that I felt Zegh was being supportive of, are not even the "IRA". The IRA have announced a permenant ceasefire. The splinter groups that are causing trouble now do not even have the support of the Repuplican community that they claim to represent. Their only goal appears to be to drag the country back into a war again, and completely split Loyalist and Nationalist communities at a time when all good people should be promoting unity. This is why I am disgusted by the actions of these groups, and have no time for anybody who supports them.
-
bod, as a military enthusiast, "bloody sunday" strikes me as very strange. i know this is by far the most famous event in "the troubles" but the CHOISE of paratrooper commandos is what truly bothers me.
its something i havent seen discussed a lot, maybe over there they brought it up more
but its about the faulty math:
you have protesters, Who do we call?
The police?
The riot police? <---this would be sufficient, i suspect.
Special police?
The home guard?
Some infantry group?
The anti terror unit?
Paratrooper commandos? <---these men are a unit of their own, because this is how it works:
Each unit has its own TASK, its own EXPECTATION.
You wouldnt send riot police to put out a fire. they would be completely confused, and they would suck at firefighting.
Commando soldiers sit around and wait for a "sharp mission", as we call them in norwegian. If your a home guard soldier, or you train recruits in a military base, you do that because you like the military, but your not too eager about death.
If your more eager about death and killing, you become a commando soldier, because commandos are used for killing:
theyre the ones you call for resolutions of hostage situations (iranian embassy hostage situation in the UK), assasinations, etc.
and these guys
are trained
to kill, kill, kill and kill <---THAT is their expectation. If you call commandos, to babysit in a kindergarden, theyre gonna be shifty-eyed looking behind every shelf, EAGER to kill some arab or some communist, or whoever.
the fact that the british government sent paratroopers to deal with protesters, means _only_ one of two things:
1. they have no fucking idea what the various military units are for. Which sounds unlikely.
2. they _intended_ for the carnage. which sounds... harsh.
-
realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.
I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.
From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.
It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.
thats what i am saying dearie.... :D
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.
by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!? :D
Of course I understand what you are saying, but that's not really why I took exception to your words.
Without the original quote, which I can't find, it makes it pretty hard to argue from my perspective.
Anybody who supports the actions of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups, is either mindlessly ignorant, or is in favour of seeing a country get further torn apart, and ruining the lives of the people who have the misfortune to live here. All for the sake of a war that is over.
-
realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.
I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.
From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.
It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.
thats what i am saying dearie.... :D
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.
by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!? :D
Of course I understand what you are saying, but that's not really why I took exception to your words.
Without the original quote, which I can't find, it makes it pretty hard to argue from my perspective.
Anybody who supports the actions of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups, is either mindlessly ignorant, or is in favour of seeing a country get further torn apart, and ruining the lives of the people who have the misfortune to live here. All for the sake of a war that is over.
fine, then ill take upon myself to have acted on a very idealistic mindset.
i just find sad that a resistance group should give up completely. the breivik comparison, to me, is a bit off, cus he (first of all broke ALL records, im not sure if you know this, but hes #1 world-champion in spree killing) isnt fighting for a cause that most or even many norwegians support, not even in theory.
i never mentioned that group by name, because i woulda remembered. i dont. so...
i probably expressed dissapointment that it (it, as in irish resistance, in general) was over, and that britain won, again, just by being stronger.
since you know best who's who, you made the assumption that i was supporting that specific group, and therefore all their previous actions.
-
realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.
and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]
I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.
I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.
From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.
It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.
Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.
thats what i am saying dearie.... :D
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.
by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!? :D
Of course I understand what you are saying, but that's not really why I took exception to your words.
Without the original quote, which I can't find, it makes it pretty hard to argue from my perspective.
Anybody who supports the actions of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups, is either mindlessly ignorant, or is in favour of seeing a country get further torn apart, and ruining the lives of the people who have the misfortune to live here. All for the sake of a war that is over.
fine, then ill take upon myself to have acted on a very idealistic mindset.
i just find sad that a resistance group should give up completely. the breivik comparison, to me, is a bit off, cus he (first of all broke ALL records, im not sure if you know this, but hes #1 world-champion in spree killing) isnt fighting for a cause that most or even many norwegians support, not even in theory.
i never mentioned that group by name, because i woulda remembered. i dont. so...
i probably expressed dissapointment that it (it, as in irish resistance, in general) was over, and that britain won, again, just by being stronger.
since you know best who's who, you made the assumption that i was supporting that specific group, and therefore all their previous actions.
I never made an assumption about you supporting one particular group. I am going by my memory, which may be flawed, that you were in favour of the post-ceasefire groups who were continuing the fight, on the basis that you felt they were giving grief to the British government.
The reality is that they give little grief to the British government, but lots to the people of N.I.
Obviously there are differences between the terrorism in Norway and that in N.I. What happened in Norway was a shocking event, but a one-off(hopefully.) In N.I, we live every day knowing that terrorism of some type is a very real possibility.
-
then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.
i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair! :D
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.
i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.
-
then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.
i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair! :D
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.
i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.
Cool. Fair enough.
For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.
I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.
-
then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.
i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair! :D
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.
i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.
Cool. Fair enough.
For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.
I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.
i always value information.
i remember the news story about the disarmament reaching here, and they didnt make any distinction between fractions of the ira, and i was even sortof expecting to hear some specifications about it, but they didnt mention any, so i just didnt think about that detail any further.
i do wish you'd have taken that angle, inform me about the specifics, before jumping right to "call out my bullshit" :]
-
then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.
i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair! :D
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.
i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.
Cool. Fair enough.
For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.
I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.
i always value information.
i remember the news story about the disarmament reaching here, and they didnt make any distinction between fractions of the ira, and i was even sortof expecting to hear some specifications about it, but they didnt mention any, so i just didnt think about that detail any further.
i do wish you'd have taken that angle, inform me about the specifics, before jumping right to "call out my bullshit" :]
Yeah, OK. I am sorry about that.
This is still a touchy subject here, and having a small group of warped lunatics trying to destroy the fragile peace that exists is something that really hurts me, and a lot of others. I suppose it is something that it is easy to feel very strongly about if you live here. I may have overreacted :laugh:
If you want a bit of information about events since the disarmament. I'm no expert, and Schleed, or some others may know better than me, but this is a quick rundown:
In 1998 a referendum was held in both N.I, and Southern Ireland. This was a yes or no question, basically asking the people if they wanted peace or not.
This was supported by all the major polital parties, as well as the political wing of the IRA.
The result of the poll in N.I was 71% in favour of peace, from a turn out of 81% of the population (94% in favour of peace in Southern Ireland). It was an overwhelming majority of the people of the country choosing peace, and rejecting further violence.
This agreement, that was agreed by the IRA, meant that the IRA, and all other paramilitaries would disarm, and the IRA would enter the mainstream political process as Sinn Fein.
The leader of Sinn Fein is Martin McGuinness, a former IRA member. He is the deputy First Minister of N.I. This means that he is the equal joint-leader of N.I.
Sadly, some people have decided not to respect the wishes of the people, and have chosen to continue the fight. They are the "Real IRA," and the"Provisional IRA," as well as some others. Unlike the IRA, these people do not have the support or resources to put any pressure on the government, so they have adopted a different strategy.
Their goal is to drive a wedge between the two sides, and to undermine the peace process. They are attempting to cause a war between Loyalist and Nationalists in the hope that one, or both sides will abandon peace.
The old IRA largely had the support of the Nationalist community. The Nationalist community, and the IRA has now chosen peace, not war. They have chosen political dialogue, rather than violence.
The terrorist groups represent only a small portion of Nationalists, and are hated by the majority of their own side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998)
-
then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.
i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair! :D
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.
i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.
Cool. Fair enough.
For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.
I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.
i always value information.
i remember the news story about the disarmament reaching here, and they didnt make any distinction between fractions of the ira, and i was even sortof expecting to hear some specifications about it, but they didnt mention any, so i just didnt think about that detail any further.
i do wish you'd have taken that angle, inform me about the specifics, before jumping right to "call out my bullshit" :]
Yeah, OK. I am sorry about that.
This is still a touchy subject here, and having a small group of warped lunatics trying to destroy the fragile peace that exists is something that really hurts me, and a lot of others. I suppose it is something that it is easy to feel very strongly about if you live here. I may have overreacted :laugh:
If you want a bit of information about events since the disarmament. I'm no expert, and Schleed, or some others may know better than me, but this is a quick rundown:
In 1998 a referendum was held in both N.I, and Southern Ireland. This was a yes or no question, basically asking the people if they wanted peace or not.
This was supported by all the major polital parties, as well as the political wing of the IRA.
The result of the poll in N.I was 71% in favour of peace, from a turn out of 81% of the population (94% in favour of peace in Southern Ireland). It was an overwhelming majority of the people of the country choosing peace, and rejecting further violence.
This agreement, that was agreed by the IRA, meant that the IRA, and all other paramilitaries would disarm, and the IRA would enter the mainstream political process as Sinn Fein.
The leader of Sinn Fein is Martin McGuinness, a former IRA member. He is the deputy First Minister of N.I. This means that he is the equal joint-leader of N.I.
Sadly, some people have decided not to respect the wishes of the people, and have chosen to continue the fight. They are the "Real IRA," and the"Provisional IRA," as well as some others. Unlike the IRA, these people do not have the support or resources to put any pressure on the government, so they have adopted a different strategy.
Their goal is to drive a wedge between the two sides, and to undermine the peace process. They are attempting to cause a war between Loyalist and Nationalists in the hope that one, or both sides will abandon peace.
The old IRA largely had the support of the Nationalist community. The Nationalist community, and the IRA has now chosen peace, not war. They have chosen political dialogue, rather than violence.
The terrorist groups represent only a small portion of Nationalists, and are hated by the majority of their own side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998)
this is pretty much the version of the situation that i was allready aware of (more or less:D)
of course, i completely understand that people are sick of such a long lasting problem.
its the same in spain, the basques come down to a dilemma:
Do we support the harsh methods implemented by ETA? (at approx one car bomb a month at worst, the ETA are "amazingly" good at avoiding civilian casualties)
Or do we simply sit back, and accept that spain owns us, just cus they have more strength, and because we are sick of hostilities?
_that_ is where my support sentiment comes from. I like the notion that a tiny underdog is capable to show relentless resistance, over decades, despite the strained situation it causes.
its much too easy to support america bombing the fuck out of entire cities, than it is to support a tiny group of people torching cars, it seems, it comes down to a matter of culture and trend, more than actual reason (as often)
or people going "goddamn palestinians" to one shoeless kid, throwing rocks at soldiers, for then to go
"good for them, for defending themselves" when israel carpetbombs all of gaza.
i tend to root for the "underdog" :D
but yes, you are right
my original sentiment is for the "good old" ira, and their cause. and i did suspect that you had a bit of personal emotion considering the subject matter, being from there and all :]
-
I dreamt this turned into a callout. Oh, wait. It did.
-
Hey guy's i do understand what you both say. Me, i just pounce on
an opportunity to highlight government fuck up's :zoinks:
It's been cool reading actually. I like to read how other's view the things that go on in this world. In my experience it is rare to find
people your age who are so knowledgeable and articulate and who actually give a fuck!
( by the way when i say 'people your age' i don't mean it in any kind of patronising way. In fact it makes me feel kinda older :( but defo not wiser, i just mean i see too much apathy in some folks, and i really hate apathy )
And, i really hope your 'peace' lasts and that you can relax about things more Butterflies. I think my nerves would be kind of twitchy if my own neighbourhood had that history. :thumbup:
-
bod, in english plural is written w a normal s, "fuck ups" "others"
*GIGGLE* :zoinks: :zoinks: :zoinks:
people will correct the hell out of me, but the other way around, i always drop the ', but most cus i just dont* care :D
(*don't) :D
besides, i am a norwegian, being corrected, often snarkily, by native english speakers "learn to speak english u retard :M"
its always a kick as a non-english speaker, to correct those who speak it :zoinks:
_just playin w ya tho_
i dont think i can deal with yet another dramatic argument so soon :D
-
Look my excuse for my poor english is that
it is a deliberate attempt to hide my extremely
high IQ ;) you know, just to put people at ease :zoinks:
-
Look my excuse for my poor english is that
it is a deliberate attempt to hide my extremely
high IQ ;) you know, just to put people at ease :zoinks:
thats very commendable of you!!! :o
-
Hey guy's i do understand what you both say. Me, i just pounce on
an opportunity to highlight government fuck up's :zoinks:
It's been cool reading actually. I like to read how other's view the things that go on in this world. In my experience it is rare to find
people your age who are so knowledgeable and articulate and who actually give a fuck!
( by the way when i say 'people your age' i don't mean it in any kind of patronising way. In fact it makes me feel kinda older :( but defo not wiser, i just mean i see too much apathy in some folks, and i really hate apathy )
And, i really hope your 'peace' lasts and that you can relax about things more Butterflies. I think my nerves would be kind of twitchy if my own neighbourhood had that history. :thumbup:
Thanks, and I hope the peace lasts as well.
I'm in quite a unique position here because I'm one of the few non-foreigners in the country who are genuinely neutral in this "war."
I moved here with my Aunt and Uncle and cousin a couple of years ago. My aunt is originally from here, but moved to London when she was around 20, partly to get away from the troubles. They made the decision to move here when it looked like the troubles were just about over. Sadly, since we came here, things have slowly got worse, and although things aren't anywhere near as bad as they were in the past, they are pretty shocking to someone who grew up in Scotland. At times it has looked like their might be a return to the very bad old days.
I hate this place and wish I could go home.
-
I dreamt this turned into a callout. Oh, wait. It did.
i dont think i can deal with yet another dramatic argument so soon :D
No callout. No dramatic argument. Just a fairly mild disagreement.
-
Weed makes any mild disagreement look like swathing criticism laced with personal attacks.
Frankly, my comments were more swathing criticism and personal attacks though.
-
Weed makes any mild disagreement look like swathing criticism laced with personal attacks.
Frankly, my comments were more swathing criticism and personal attacks though.
Funnily enough, weed makes me less likely to take offence at stuff :laugh:
-
Unless you're Zegh, who gets ultra pissy over everything.
-
Unless you're Zegh, who gets ultra pissy over everything.
I'm better than you :M :M
:zoinks:
Weed makes any mild disagreement look like swathing criticism laced with personal attacks.
Frankly, my comments were more swathing criticism and personal attacks though.
Funnily enough, weed makes me less likely to take offence at stuff :laugh:
I've never tried it.. I hate the whole idea of smoking though , I tried it a bit (smoking) when I started college but I didn't really like the fumes. :P
-
^^ did you try smoking tobacco or weed ? Omg did you get high ?
-
Unless you're Zegh, who gets ultra pissy over everything.
I'm better than you :M :M
:zoinks:
Weed makes any mild disagreement look like swathing criticism laced with personal attacks.
Frankly, my comments were more swathing criticism and personal attacks though.
Funnily enough, weed makes me less likely to take offence at stuff :laugh:
I've never tried it.. I hate the whole idea of smoking though , I tried it a bit (smoking) when I started college but I didn't really like the fumes. :P
Funny thing is that I'm pretty anti-smoking. I hate tobacco, and I don't like joints with tobacco in them. Tobacco makes me puke.
I like to hit the bong occasionally though. Not enough that it might damage my health, but I do like to get stoned at least a few times a year.
-
No one in the US really smokes weed with tobacco. Everyone I talk to online from Europe seems to do this, though.
-
No one in the US really smokes weed with tobacco. Everyone I talk to online from Europe seems to do this, though.
How do you do it in America?
-
well I mean I am not speaking for everyone just a cultral thing..
um, just by itself. in bowls or bongs or joints. Just we really never mix it with anything except hash or coke maybe. I know that I smoked a lot of blunts and that is what like 90% of people under 45 or so here do. Hollowed out cigars re-rolled, tobacco removed.
-
Am I the only one here who can get high on a well steeped cup of Earl Grey tea and a custard doughnut?
-
well I mean I am not speaking for everyone just a cultral thing..
um, just by itself. in bowls or bongs or joints. Just we really never mix it with anything except hash or coke maybe. I know that I smoked a lot of blunts and that is what like 90% of people under 45 or so here do. Hollowed out cigars re-rolled, tobacco removed.
I'd heard of blunts, but I never knew what they were. I don't think I've ever seen anyone here do that.
Here it's all tobacco joints, or bongs or hash pipes.
Am I the only one here who can get high on a well steeped cup of Earl Grey tea and a custard doughnut?
I think so. Tea doesn't get me high, although Irn-Bru used to make my hyper when I was a young kid :LOL:
-
I have a bong :D
wait, no, its not for drugs :s Its a pretty vase for flowers :)
-
well I mean I am not speaking for everyone just a cultral thing..
um, just by itself. in bowls or bongs or joints. Just we really never mix it with anything except hash or coke maybe. I know that I smoked a lot of blunts and that is what like 90% of people under 45 or so here do. Hollowed out cigars re-rolled, tobacco removed.
I'd heard of blunts, but I never knew what they were. I don't think I've ever seen anyone here do that.
Here it's all tobacco joints, or bongs or hash pipes.
Am I the only one here who can get high on a well steeped cup of Earl Grey tea and a custard doughnut?
I think so. Tea doesn't get me high, although Irn-Bru used to make my hyper when I was a young kid :LOL:
It is all anyone here does. It didnt catch on really till I was about 20 or so. Kids !
(http://www.concept420.com/images/how_to_roll_a_blunt.jpg)
-
^^ did you try smoking tobacco or weed ? Omg did you get high ?
Tobacco , I'm not that brave. :laugh:
Unless you're Zegh, who gets ultra pissy over everything.
I'm better than you :M :M
:zoinks:
Weed makes any mild disagreement look like swathing criticism laced with personal attacks.
Frankly, my comments were more swathing criticism and personal attacks though.
Funnily enough, weed makes me less likely to take offence at stuff :laugh:
I've never tried it.. I hate the whole idea of smoking though , I tried it a bit (smoking) when I started college but I didn't really like the fumes. :P
Funny thing is that I'm pretty anti-smoking. I hate tobacco, and I don't like joints with tobacco in them. Tobacco makes me puke.
I like to hit the bong occasionally though. Not enough that it might damage my health, but I do like to get stoned at least a few times a year.
:lol:
That is pretty funny , yeah I used to be anti-smoking and to an extent anti-drugs but eh , if people don't let their habits control them it's not much worse than occasionally getting drunk. :dunno:
-
eww yuck. tobacco is gross :( I dont recommend anyone do it and I would say that most people that smoke say they dont like it. I smoked for over 10 years actually :S The blunts make it richer and kind of taste like tobacco as... now that I think about it, i think the blunt wraps are actually made of tobacco leaves :S I think I just contradicted myself :D
Am I the only one here who can get high on a well steeped cup of Earl Grey tea and a custard doughnut?
energy drinks get me high, like I did an extremely small amount of coke. I drink them before I have to go to work.
-
I have a Q.
when you smoke tobacco and weed mixed together, do you hold it in a long time ??? That is always what confuses me about that... because I would certainly not inhale tobacco the same as marijuana.
-
I grew up around a smoker (Dad). I didn't try smoking until I went to college in 1967, when I tried Picayunes (see below). Couldn't get addicted. Tried 2 more times with different brands over the years. (A total of 3 packs lol). Cigarettes never did anything for me, so I never really smoked. Can't see or feel the attraction.
Picayune cigarettes were produced in USA, short (70 mm), soft pack, 20 cigarettes in a pack.
They were last manufactured by Liggett Group
The pack read "Picayune Extra Mild Cigarettes" "Pride of New Orleans" - The bottom read "Picayune 20's"
Although it said "Extra Mild" on the pack, they were the strongest cigarette I ever smoked, by far.
Per Luc Sante--Picayune, "the pride of New Orleans," a cigarette that may have been the only American brand made from caporal tobacco, the strong stuff that's used in Gauloises
(Note - they were unfiltered)
-
I hate the smell of tobacco smoke, never really smelt weed smoke. And I hate to see people smoking, but I do LOVE seeing pretty girls smoke Virginia Slim 120s or something similar... Especially while wearing lipstick... What a weird sexual fetish I have. :wanker:
-
I have a really lovely bong. 5ft tall, with four pipes. I think it is brass, i will take a pic of it later. Of course it is only used for decorative purposes!
-
I hate the smell of tobacco smoke, never really smelt weed smoke. And I hate to see people smoking, but I do LOVE seeing pretty girls smoke Virginia Slim 120s or something similar... Especially while wearing lipstick... What a weird sexual fetish I have. :wanker:
Well, compared to some fetishes, it is a fairly respectable one. Sort of the black and white movie with a close-up of the blonde with her bangs swept across her forehead, wearing red lipstick and a cigarette or something like this:
(http://us.cdn1.123rf.com/168nwm/dolgachov/dolgachov0910/dolgachov091000899/5685075-dark-picture-of-smoking-naked-devil-woman.jpg)
or this:
(http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/vedmezulik/vedmezulik0907/vedmezulik090700047/5149828-sexy-young-woman-smoking-cigarette.jpg)
-
I have a Q.
when you smoke tobacco and weed mixed together, do you hold it in a long time ??? That is always what confuses me about that... because I would certainly not inhale tobacco the same as marijuana.
As far as I can tell, they smoke it like a normal cigarette, but someone who smokes them will know.
-
Am I the only one here who can get high on a well steeped cup of Earl Grey tea and a custard doughnut?
No, Your Majesty, definitely not! :2thumbsup:
-
I have a really lovely bong. 5ft tall, with four pipes. I think it is brass, i will take a pic of it later. Of course it is only used for decorative purposes!
But of course, all the really posh homes have giant brass bongs in their drawing rooms. :toporly:
-
Bang her and mash. That's what the fat man did to his skinny wife. (OW, that one even hurt me)
-
I have a really lovely bong. 5ft tall, with four pipes. I think it is brass, i will take a pic of it later. Of course it is only used for decorative purposes!
thats a didgeridoo :I
-
A whattywho?
-
Dear god. 8 pages? I can't read this all and just hope you two made up :)
-
Dear god. 8 pages? I can't read this all and just hope you two made up :)
Yep, they made up alright...
:orgasm:
:missionary:
:titfuck:
:zoinks:
-
no i am still enormously butthurt!
(waits for schleed to hurry and say something about that has to do with weed or welfare, or something)
-
(Stands in for Shleed at bat.)
(http://www.thinkso.com/img/work/arm/arm_logotype_01.jpg)
-
I have a Q.
when you smoke tobacco and weed mixed together, do you hold it in a long time ??? That is always what confuses me about that... because I would certainly not inhale tobacco the same as marijuana.
I did
-
you held it in a long time ? I cant do that with tobacco or woldnt know why anyone would want to. Also when I smoked weed I kept it in like 30 seconds. Doing that with cigarettes would have killed me. And wtf were you doing smoking weed with tobacco ? Is that you or a custom in your neck of the woods ? I have honestly never talked to an American that did that.
-
you held it in a long time ? I cant do that with tobacco or woldnt know why anyone would want to. Also when I smoked weed I kept it in like 30 seconds. Doing that with cigarettes would have killed me. And wtf were you doing smoking weed with tobacco ? Is that you or a custom in your neck of the woods ? I have honestly never talked to an American that did that.
I'm sure it is rare in the states. Over in Spain when we smoked with Spaniards we often did it their way. A porro is a joint where heated & crumbled hashish is mixed with tobacco and rolled up fatter on the end that gets lit. The end that gets put in the mouth gets a short length of match book paper rolled into a tube as a cooling chamber. Of course when we filled the pipe the Spaniards would smoke it our way. It was all about international cooperation. :2thumbsup:
-
Dear god. 8 pages? I can't read this all and just hope you two made up :)
Yep, they made up alright...
:orgasm:
:missionary:
:titfuck:
:zoinks:
There was no need for us to make up, as we had never fell out. I disagreed with Zeghs POV and felt it was hypocritical, and still do.
I liked Zegh before this disagreement, and still like him.
Don't Be jealous Penty. I'll :redneck: you , as soon as I've finished :titfuck: :missionary: Zegh :headbang2:
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sadly it wont happen though, as sex with another person would make my head explode.
She is pretty though, and I'm sure she can make your dick explode all by herself :bounce:
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sadly it wont happen though, as sex with another person would make my head explode.
She is pretty though, and I'm sure she can make your dick explode all by herself :bounce:
That's the point though isn't it? ;)
Oh and if people freak you out , try animals instead. :zoinks:
-
you held it in a long time ? I cant do that with tobacco or woldnt know why anyone would want to. Also when I smoked weed I kept it in like 30 seconds. Doing that with cigarettes would have killed me. And wtf were you doing smoking weed with tobacco ? Is that you or a custom in your neck of the woods ? I have honestly never talked to an American that did that.
Only tried it a couple of times. Mixed 50/50 with clove cigarette tobacco masks the smell enough that you can smoke in a public setting without being very obvious. I smoked it like a cig, but held it in without being obvious. Don't want to waste good smoke.
Edited to add: You don't hold in tobacco smoke at all? You might not be very addicted. I always held in each drag for at least a few seconds. I was a complete nicotine addict though.
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Sadly it wont happen though, as sex with another person would make my head explode.
She is pretty though, and I'm sure she can make your dick explode all by herself :bounce:
That's the point though isn't it? ;)
Oh and if people freak you out , try animals instead. :zoinks:
I might just do that :vibrator:
-
stop soiling my thread with animal sex
tell me some awesome dream instead :M
-
stop soiling my thread with animal sex
tell me some awesome dream instead :M
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
-
aw what a nice dream!
-
"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition"
I see you suffer from the same misinformation todays blacks subscribe to.
Lincoln only freed the slaves on the southern side of the conflict. On the northern side of the battle lines the slaves continued to work.
It was a tactical maneuver.
Remember Lincoln was a racist also, until he met Frederick Douglass.
Sorry to spoil yer dream
Dream on.
-
The text alone doesn't do it justice.
I have a dream by Martin Luther King Jr-Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQucZKToFXE#)
-
"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition"
I see you suffer from the same misinformation todays blacks subscribe to.
Lincoln only freed the slaves on the southern side of the conflict. On the northern side of the battle lines the slaves continued to work.
It was a tactical maneuver.
Remember Lincoln was a racist also, until he met Frederick Douglass.
Sorry to spoil yer dream
Dream on.
Thanks Skyblue, but the man who wrote this is dead. Can't really educate him, sorry.
There is something about creating a movement through public speech that isn't best served by nitpicking facts but rather conveying emotion and persuading your audience.
Edited to ask: While we have a history expert on board, can you please tell me who did free the slaves? Or are you pretty sure that the northern states still have slaves?
-
oops my bad.
I agree with Bobby Kennedy on MLK
What an asswipe
-
oops my bad.
I agree with Bobby Kennedy on MLK
What an asswipe
I have no idea what this means.
Robert Kennedy announces death of Martin Luther King, Jr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyCWV_N0EsM#)
-
"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition"
I see you suffer from the same misinformation todays blacks subscribe to.
Lincoln only freed the slaves on the southern side of the conflict. On the northern side of the battle lines the slaves continued to work.
It was a tactical maneuver.
Remember Lincoln was a racist also, until he met Frederick Douglass.
Sorry to spoil yer dream
Dream on.
Thanks Skyblue, but the man who wrote this is dead. Can't really educate him, sorry.
There is something about creating a movement through public speech that isn't best served by nitpicking facts but rather conveying emotion and persuading your audience.
Edited to ask: While we have a history expert on board, can you please tell me who did free the slaves? Or are you pretty sure that the northern states still have slaves?
The first Confederate congress dealt with the issue of slave-trading. They agreed that it should no longer be allowed.
But only because too many white youth didnt have anything to do. The slaves had their jobs.
I dont care what happened on the northern side of the border.
The war was about states rights not slavery
I believe Lincoln started using it in 1863 as a recruitment tool. Lets go free the negro.
It seems not too many yanks wanted to fight in Lincolns war. Especially folks in the port cities in New York and Maryland. Heck they wanted to do business not fight.
Of course you must remember the victorious got to write the history books concerning their grand war.
They just left us in poverty.
-
oops my bad.
I agree with Bobby Kennedy on MLK
What an asswipe
I have no idea what this means.
Robert Kennedy announces death of Martin Luther King, Jr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyCWV_N0EsM#)
LOL ,what he said in public and private were 2 different things
Check it out in the newly released Jackie Kennedy tapes
-
I didn't know you were a southern apologist. :dunno:
Can I go out on a limb and assume you don't take kindly to integration and sharing your bathrooms and water fountains and buses with blacks? Would you allow your daughter to date one? What word do you usually use in your head when thinking of black people?
And before you get started, I am really not Chair.
-
I didn't know you were a southern apologist. :dunno:
Can I go out on a limb and assume you don't take kindly to integration and sharing your bathrooms and water fountains and buses with blacks? Would you allow your daughter to date one? What word do you usually use in your head when thinking of black people?
And before you get started, I am really not Chair.
dont have anything against any human, regardless of color.
The separation of the races was done by my great great grandfather and his kin, not me.
I tell more white guys to get the fuck out of my face than anyone, and show respect for the blacks that I come into contact with. Thats all anyone can do is show respect for all.
All I can do is say history as I have learned it. Its irony I guess that I speak of the south with respect, being southern. As an Aspie I not only stand out, because of my genetic differences. But also because my politics is so the opposite that of my fellow southerners.
meh......dont draw me into your racist arguments. Been there, done that.
Chair? You act like you actually have some brains, couldnt be Chair.
-
you held it in a long time ? I cant do that with tobacco or woldnt know why anyone would want to. Also when I smoked weed I kept it in like 30 seconds. Doing that with cigarettes would have killed me. And wtf were you doing smoking weed with tobacco ? Is that you or a custom in your neck of the woods ? I have honestly never talked to an American that did that.
I'm sure it is rare in the states. Over in Spain when we smoked with Spaniards we often did it their way. A porro is a joint where heated & crumbled hashish is mixed with tobacco and rolled up fatter on the end that gets lit. The end that gets put in the mouth gets a short length of match book paper rolled into a tube as a cooling chamber. Of course when we filled the pipe the Spaniards would smoke it our way. It was all about international cooperation. :2thumbsup:
:plus: for being a fine goodwill ambassador and promoting worldwide peace and brotherhood!
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
And then what good would you be? :dunno:
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
And then what good would you be? :dunno:
He could film it. :orly:
-
Lesbian sex between you and Emma would make my dick explode. :tard:
And then what good would you be? :dunno:
He could film it. :orly:
would make a great U-tube video
-
I see you suffer from the same misinformation todays blacks subscribe to.
Lincoln only freed the slaves on the southern side of the conflict. On the northern side of the battle lines the slaves continued to work.
Bullshit. The 13th amendment Passed in the Senate on April 8th 1864, it passed in the House on January 31st 1865. This was before a Southern sympathizer killed Lincoln. Secretary of State Seward announced it as adopted in December 1865 but the ground work was done before Booth killed Lincoln.
The first Confederate congress dealt with the issue of slave-trading. They agreed that it should no longer be allowed.
The USA dealt with slave trading well before the CSA tried to form their own country - in 1808 importation of slaves was prohibited. The only reason the CSA was not going to resume importation of slaves was that they were seeking recognition from the European powers that had banned slave trading decades before.
The war was about states rights not slavery
Bullshit. 4 of the 11 states that made up the CSA wrote up Declarations For Causes of Secession - Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. Every fucking one of them refers to the Union fucking with their right to own Negroes. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)
Furthermore I present to you - The Cornerstone Speech - given by Alexander H. Stephens Vice President of the CSA on March 21st 1861. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76)
From The Cornerstone Speech "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." Read it for yourselves.
-
As for the states rights arguments - why would the CSA revolt over states rights, specifically the right to own negroes, and then deny the right of any of its constituent states to outlaw slavery? How is taking away that option being all about states rights? Here is the Confederate Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html) Read Section 9.4 "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That was a fucking disgusting document back in 1861 and it still is.
-
Perhaps the most important states rights argument during those times.
Was about the southern states wanting to trade with whomever they wanted, without their goods being tariffed when they came into northern ports. The southern states wanted to do more trade with England, as the English paid more for our goods. The US government frowned on that.
-
As for the states rights arguments - why would the CSA revolt over states rights, specifically the right to own negroes, and then deny the right of any of its constituent states to outlaw slavery? How is taking away that option being all about states rights? Here is the Confederate Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html) Read Section 9.4 "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That was a fucking disgusting document back in 1861 and it still is.
dont get pissed at me , I wasnt alive during those days.
-
I was speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation. Where Lincoln freed the slaves on the southern side of the border. It was a tactical move, to increase unrest.
In Mississippi on the southern side of the battle lines the slaves stopped work. On the northern side they continued to work the fields.
-
Perhaps the most important states rights argument during those times.
Was about the southern states wanting to trade with whomever they wanted, without their goods being tariffed when they came into northern ports. The southern states wanted to do more trade with England, as the English paid more for our goods. The US government frowned on that.
Which does not change what Alexander Stephens himself identified as the"immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution". The North had their own grievances with the South playing fast and loose with congressional representation by identifying non voting negroes as 3/5 of a man for purposes of garnering more members of congress than they would have been entitled to had they counted their census the way the non slave owning states did.
From the Declarations of Causes For Secession
Georgia - "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate states with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi - "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world."
South Carolina - "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all states North of that line have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
Texas - "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery -- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits -- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
There is nothing in any of these documents from 1861 that would lead me to believe that slavery was some sort of "oh by the way" after thought in this whole process skyblue. Slavery was the cause of secession.
As for the states rights arguments - why would the CSA revolt over states rights, specifically the right to own negroes, and then deny the right of any of its constituent states to outlaw slavery? How is taking away that option being all about states rights? Here is the Confederate Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html) Read Section 9.4 "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That was a fucking disgusting document back in 1861 and it still is.
dont get pissed at me , I wasnt alive during those days.
Neo confederate revisionism tweaks my tail a bit. I have family that fought on both sides of that war, I'm not ashamed of the ones from the South - but they were on the wrong side. No amount of "He did it too" finger pointing at Sherman or Sheridan will make slavery okay IMO. There is no way to justify the CSA without justifying slavery. Separating the CSA, or the Civil War, from slavery is akin to shaving shit off of a turd IMO. Slavery was a degenerate institution that the CSA intended to keep forever if they could.
-
This is not personal skyblue. It is a subject that I feel strongly about. None of the arguments trying to separate the war, or the CSA, from slavery make any sense to me. Documents from the CSA leadership from the era all show slavery the be the primary cause.
-
Perhaps the most important states rights argument during those times.
Was about the southern states wanting to trade with whomever they wanted, without their goods being tariffed when they came into northern ports. The southern states wanted to do more trade with England, as the English paid more for our goods. The US government frowned on that.
Which does not change what Alexander Stephens himself identified as the"immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution". The North had their own grievances with the South playing fast and loose with congressional representation by identifying non voting negroes as 3/5 of a man for purposes of garnering more members of congress than they would have been entitled to had they counted their census the way the non slave owning states did.
From the Declarations of Causes For Secession
Georgia - "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate states with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Mississippi - "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world."
South Carolina - "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all states North of that line have united in the election of a man to high office of the President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
Texas - "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery -- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits -- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
There is nothing in any of these documents from 1861 that would lead me to believe that slavery was some sort of "oh by the way" after thought in this whole process skyblue. Slavery was the cause of secession.
As for the states rights arguments - why would the CSA revolt over states rights, specifically the right to own negroes, and then deny the right of any of its constituent states to outlaw slavery? How is taking away that option being all about states rights? Here is the Confederate Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html) Read Section 9.4 "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
That was a fucking disgusting document back in 1861 and it still is.
dont get pissed at me , I wasnt alive during those days.
Neo confederate revisionism tweaks my tail a bit. I have family that fought on both sides of that war, I'm not ashamed of the ones from the South - but they were on the wrong side. No amount of "He did it too" finger pointing at Sherman or Sheridan will make slavery okay IMO. There is no way to justify the CSA without justifying slavery. Separating the CSA, or the Civil War, from slavery is akin to shaving shit off of a turd IMO. Slavery was a degenerate institution that the CSA intended to keep forever if they could.
the north with its treatment of africans (as slaves and servants) didnt have a thing to brag about. Slavery was in fashion before that time ( and still is today).
Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).
Or the recent repentant that joins the evangelicals and says everyone else should believe as they do.
Change took time.
So, anyway, you can get off your high horse and I`ll climb down off my soapbox.
-
Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).
How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same? Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.
-
Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).
How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same? Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.
Tsk. Another strawman?
Makes less sense, thean your last.
I have moved on.
-
This must be like the 5th time this thread changed directions :P
-
Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).
How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same? Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.
Tsk. Another strawman?
Makes less sense, thean your last.
What strawman have I used here?
I have moved on.
I would to if I were in your position. :zoinks:
-
Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).
How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same? Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.
Tsk. Another strawman?
Makes less sense, thean your last. [\quote]
What strawman have I used here?
I have moved on.
I would to if I were in your position. :zoinks:
hmm a strawman statement, that is actually, just baiting....nice try thanx for the oppurtunity to advance my post count
-
Its kind of like a smoker who quits and then thinks they have the right to force everyone over to their side ( when they have only recently changed their own behavior ).
How long does someone have to wait after pulling their head out of their ass before they can tell others to do the same? Your argument makes no sense to me, as recent converts have more credibility than people who have never been on the wrong side of something.
Tsk. Another strawman?
Makes less sense, thean your last. [\quote]
What strawman have I used here?
I have moved on.
I would to if I were in your position. :zoinks:
hmm a strawman statement, that is actually, just baiting....nice try thanx for the oppurtunity to advance my post count
Always happy to help :zoinks:
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)