|
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
A) Irish terrorism was not the result of immigrants.
B) Quote pnp
" As I said earlier in the thread, when migrant numbers keep rising, acceptance of the newcomers by the indigenous population gradually cools, eventually turning into resentment - ultimately generating acts of vandalism and violence. When it starts to happen on a regular basis, it's a clear sign that saturation point has been reached"
No one denies their is a problem with Radical Islamic Terrorism in the UK.
I am just pointing out that you cannot blame all immigrants or asylum seekers for crimes of terrorism or ignore the non ethnic home grown acts of violence and terrorism.To do so makes it hard to believe that
you are not singleing out people by the colour of their skin or religion.
It is not the amount of immigrants with non white skin that causes
'resentment vandalism and violence' rather the amount of bigots causing resentment and hate towards innocent people in minority groups.
Sadly occasionally some of these ethnic victims will reflect their hate and revenge on innocent people too.
A) IRA seem to think it is, with their 'Brits go home' narrative.
B) That's what I'm saying. The newcomers wisely kept their heads down at first, until the late '90's when, emboldened by weight of numbers, the attacks began. Of course it wasn't long after that, before tit-for-tat attacks against them also kicked off.....
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
A) IRA seem to think it is, with their 'Brits go home' narrative.
B) That's what I'm saying. The newcomers wisely kept their heads down at first, until the late '90's when, emboldened by weight of numbers, the attacks began. Of course it wasn't long after that, before tit-for-tat attacks against them also kicked off.....
'Brits go home' was specific to British Forces deployed in N.I at the request
of the RUC.
They left in 2007.
The Northern Irish were Brits are Brits and were only ever 'immigrants' for the purpose of domestic demography interest.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
newcomers wisely kept their heads down
Originally Posted by The PNP
…
That's what I'm saying. The newcomers wisely kept their heads down at first, until the late '90's when, emboldened by weight of numbers, the attacks began. Of course it wasn't long after that, before tit-for-tat attacks against them also kicked off...
An unspoken assumption — i.e. that there is a clearly defined ethnic /cultural norm to be defended within England and/or any other country — warrants examination.- There is and always has been considerable sub-regional diversity among groups whose ancestors have lived in the same locality for innumerable generations.
- Nationalism that aims to paper over diversity, or worse eliminate it is both comparatively modern and it is not invariably good in itself.
- Waves of migration have always been a feature of human existence.
- Vibrant cultures mingle and absorb one another; enforced stasis is the knell of decline.
The notion that "newcomers" should keep their heads down is rather small-minded.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
An unspoken assumption — i.e. that there is a clearly defined ethnic /cultural norm to be defended within England and/or any other country — warrants examination. - There is and always has been considerable sub-regional diversity among groups whose ancestors have lived in the same locality for innumerable generations.
- Nationalism that aims to paper over diversity, or worse eliminate it is both comparatively modern and it is not invariably good in itself.
- Waves of migration have always been a feature of human existence.
- Vibrant cultures mingle and absorb one another; enforced stasis is the knell of decline.
The notion that "newcomers" should keep their heads down is rather small-minded.
We see it time and again across the World, where newcomers have kept moving in, until the existing population eventually takes exception...The from the troubles in Myanmar, to attacks on settlers by American indians - it's always the same sort of story.
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 2 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
We see it time and again across the World, where newcomers have kept moving in, until the existing population eventually takes exception...The from the troubles in Myanmar, to attacks on settlers by American indians - it's always the same sort of story.
Regarding North America, once again you're confusing colonisation with immigration.
N. America was invaded and colonised by several countries. And your description simplifies a far more complex situation. Neither America or Canada was a country. They were land masses with specific areas belonging to individual tribal bands. In other words, a land mass consisting of hundreds of small countries. Despite being indigenous people, the tribal bands didn't always get along with each other either.
You should also read up on the history of the Myanmar crisis. Once again you're simplifying a complex subject.... a bit like you did with your anti-Semtitic, anti-Zionist opinion on how Israel was founded.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
We see it time and again across the World, where newcomers have kept moving in, until the existing population eventually takes exception...The from the troubles in Myanmar, to attacks on settlers by American indians - it's always the same sort of story.
You've got it the wrong way around settlers attacked the American Indians to steal their lands - it was genocide, you've spent too much time watching John Wayne cowboy movies.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
anti-Semitic ?
Originally Posted by seivad
…a bit like you did with your anti-Semtitic, anti-Zionist opinion on how Israel was founded.
If so and accepting The PNP may well have had 20th century Palestine in mind, I am interested to know how you reason the implication is "anti-Semitic"?
Simplifying it may have been. An antithetical insinuation with respect of Zionism? Perhaps. But anti-Semitic? I don't see it.
Colonization is not always inseparable from immigration. I agree likening migration of present-day refugees to colonizers is straying into paranoia.
A gadfly on this forum showed great determination to label post #136 anti-Semitic.
One or other of you had better justify it!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Alikado
You've got it the wrong way around settlers attacked the American Indians to steal their lands - it was genocide, you've spent too much time watching John Wayne cowboy movies.
Just like what happened to the indigenous Jews of Israel.
Quote
"There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians and archaeologists agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE[31]:?169–195?[94] and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE.[32] The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
" The Assyrians conquered Palestine in the 8th century BCE, then the Babylonians in c. 601 BCE, followed by the Persians who conquered the Babylonian Empire in 539 BCE. Alexander the Great conquered Palestine in the late 330s BCE, beginning a long period of Hellenization. In the late 2nd century BCE, the semi-independent Hasmonean kingdom conquered most of Palestine but the kingdom gradually became a vassal of Rome, which annexed Palestine in 63 BCE. Roman rule was troubled by Jewish rebellions, which Rome answered with by destroying the Jews' temple. In the 4th century, as the Roman Empire Christened, Palestine became a center of Christianity, attracting pilgrims, monks and scholars."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
Note
"The term "Palestine" first appeared in the 5th century BC when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt in The Histories."
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
If so and accepting The PNP may well have had 20 th century Palestine in mind, I am interested to know how you reason the implication is "anti-Semitic"?
Simplifying it may have been. An antithetical insinuation with respect of Zionism? Perhaps. But anti-Semitic? I don't see it.
Colonization is not always inseparable from immigration. I agree likening migration of present-day refugees to colonizers is straying into paranoia.
A gadfly on this forum showed great determination to label post #136 anti-Semitic.
One or other of you had better justify it!
Agree re colonisation and immigration.....The difference (at least initially) imo, is that colonisation is usually preceded by a military campaign to subdue the 'natives'. Whereas, immigration is generally carried out gradually by a foreign civilian population/s.
Of course, an apparently benign migration can lead to military action down the road. E.g. when armed forces from the foreigners homeland, invade to support their kith-and-kin after trouble has broken out. Another example, is when immigrant numbers burgeon to such an extent, they begin to organise themselves into a para-military force, ultimately leading to a complete takeover.
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
Do you think the terrorist who killed in the Manchester Arena were 'Freedom Fighters'?
No. I don't.
Nor do I think that the Christchurch Mosque terrorist -recently discussed on the forum in Conspiracy Theories- was a 'Freedom Fighter'.
I do, though, expect that the Manchester Arena bomber and the Christchurch Mosque shooter both considered themselves as 'Freedom Fighters.'
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Desert Region
No. I don't.
Nor do I think that the Christchurch Mosque terrorist -recently discussed on the forum in Conspiracy Theories- was a 'Freedom Fighter'.
I do, though, expect that the Manchester Arena bomber and the Christchurch Mosque shooter both considered themselves as 'Freedom Fighters.'
Bit like vigilantes.
There are those who just want to kill what they cannot control in themselves and in others.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
Scousers
From 02:25...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x306nnv
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
During a recent interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, Mr Trump said of his erstwhile ally: “I don’t think Bibi ever wanted to make peace.”
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
It's a problem when the former President points out the blindingly obvious.
He made some modest but useful gains in the Middle East.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Everyone wants peace even Natanyahu it is what getting that 'peace' would cost in terms of concessions that Israel's Right wing politics would not support.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|