At Last A Forum With Free Speech- Newsfix Rocks.

[Major]

First topic message reminder :

The forums I have been on where you are banned for even thinking the things we freely discuss here.

We must be allowed to vent our views, even anger if we want to.

Sassy can even have her purely racist, hatred views of us Brits put into script.

Most forums say they have free speech but it is untrue when it comes to debating, queers, terrorists, Muslims lesbos and so on.

Newfix Rocks,





unless you know different.

[Ben Reilly]

The only time I'd use fat, ugly and stupid alongside oppression is talking about Kim Jong Un, but in his case the fat, ugly idiot would be the oppressor

Nice post Ben

Thanks! And obviously I wasn't trying to create an exhaustive list of all groups who have been discriminated against; I'm glad you got that.

[Guest]

The only time I'd use fat, ugly and stupid alongside oppression is talking about Kim Jong Un, but in his case the fat, ugly idiot would be the oppressor

Nice post Ben

Thanks! And obviously I wasn't trying to create an exhaustive list of all groups who have been discriminated against; I'm glad you got that.

Yet missed how there is clear racist from the left on here which you do blatantly ignore. To the British for a start and the English.Hating people because they are israeli, is as racist as it is to hate any nationality, not only that it crosses over to blaming and casting all Jews, so I do take issue with the fact you show the worst double standards on discrmination. There is nothing wrong with being critical of settlemets, the Israeli goverment, acts by the IDF, but when people cast all a nation as zionist scum, its is some of the worst racism going.
So you certainly do tolerate some racism more than others

[Ben Reilly]

The only time I'd use fat, ugly and stupid alongside oppression is talking about Kim Jong Un, but in his case the fat, ugly idiot would be the oppressor

Nice post Ben

Thanks! And obviously I wasn't trying to create an exhaustive list of all groups who have been discriminated against; I'm glad you got that.

Yet missed how there is clear racist from the left on here which you do blatantly ignore. To the British for a start and the English.Hating people because they are israeli, is as racist as it is to hate any nationality, not only that it crosses over to blaming and casting all Jews, so I do take issue with the fact you show the worst double standards on discrmination. There is nothing wrong with being critical of settlemets, the Israeli goverment, acts by the IDF, but when people cast all a nation as zionist scum, its is some of the worst racism going.
So you certainly do tolerate some racism more than others

I haven't seen anything like that here. Again, I'd love to see a link so that instead of having to take anyone's word for it, I could judge for myself.

[Guest]

only when used in the very broadest sense of the term and thats the point your linking two ends of the scale as one and they are not the same when used properly and in context

No you are trying to move the goalpost on the meaning of the word when it is very specific Korben.
There is no scales, you are either tolerant or intolerant of a said view point.
There is no middle ground.

rubbish its you doing that using synonyms out of context

[Guest]

Yet missed how there is clear racist from the left on here which you do blatantly ignore. To the British for a start and the English.Hating people because they are israeli, is as racist as it is to hate any nationality, not only that it crosses over to blaming and casting all Jews, so I do take issue with the fact you show the worst double standards on discrmination. There is nothing wrong with being critical of settlemets, the Israeli goverment, acts by the IDF, but when people cast all a nation as zionist scum, its is some of the worst racism going.
So you certainly do tolerate some racism more than others

I haven't seen anything like that here. Again, I'd love to see a link so that instead of having to take anyone's word for it, I could judge for myself.

Just look at the countless posts by Veya on the English and british and sassy's views on the Israelis.
I suppose you forgot sexy's view that Hitler should have finished the Job I guess?
You see there is nothing worse than double standards, where people allow a hatred of a people because they have taken a bias view against them.

[Guest]

No you are trying to move the goalpost on the meaning of the word when it is very specific Korben.
There is no scales, you are either tolerant or intolerant of a said view point.
There is no middle ground.

rubbish its you doing that using synonyms out of context  

A fine example of being bigoted

[Guest]

Some of these lefties really get upset over not evening understanding a word.
You either are tolerant or intolerant of views and yet are so afraid they might be bigoted towards something.
Its very immature to say the least and shows how dishonest many of the left  are.

[Raggamuffin]

We don't have inequality under the law for black people or gay people though, so your argument doesn't really work.

You forgot to mention the posts by your administrator, Veya, who regularly posts hate speeches about English people, and even said that some of them should be bombed.

Haha, forgive me, Raggs, but I'm going to need to see a link before I believe you on that one -- you lie about people here all the time, to be blunt.

Really? Tell me what lies I've told all the time about people here. You will back up what you just said won't you? After all, if you can't, that would make you a liar.

[Raggamuffin]

Yet missed how there is clear racist from the left on here which you do blatantly ignore. To the British for a start and the English.Hating people because they are israeli, is as racist as it is to hate any nationality, not only that it crosses over to blaming and casting all Jews, so I do take issue with the fact you show the worst double standards on discrmination. There is nothing wrong with being critical of settlemets, the Israeli goverment, acts by the IDF, but when people cast all a nation as zionist scum, its is some of the worst racism going.
So you certainly do tolerate some racism more than others

I haven't seen anything like that here. Again, I'd love to see a link so that instead of having to take anyone's word for it, I could judge for myself.

Are you not going to accuse Didge of lying then? Strange that ...

[Raggamuffin]

I'm still waiting for Ben to back up what he said about me lying about people here all the time.

[Guest]

Yeah But How Many have been blown up? Fuck All, that's right so FEAR without Substance is Cowardice.

And Do you not understand that IF your society wants to Act like that then it deserves to be blown up. Just like, Hey act like ISIS and we send robots to drop bombs on you.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12658p50-Muslim-kicked-off-bus#248498

About the most idiotic comment from Veya, but that is clearly stating to bomb us and with Robots of all things


Think Ben owes Rags an apology

[Raggamuffin]

I haven't seen anything like that here. Again, I'd love to see a link so that instead of having to take anyone's word for it, I could judge for myself.

Just look at the countless posts by Veya on the English and british and sassy's views on the Israelis.
I suppose you forgot sexy's view that Hitler should have finished the Job I guess?
You see there is nothing worse than double standards, where people allow a hatred of a people because they have taken a bias view against them.

SM said that Hitler should have finished the job? FFS.

[Raggamuffin]

Yeah But How Many have been blown up? Fuck All, that's right so FEAR without Substance is Cowardice.

And Do you not understand that IF your society wants to Act like that then it deserves to be blown up. Just like, Hey act like ISIS and we send robots to drop bombs on you.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12658p50-Muslim-kicked-off-bus#248498

About the most idiotic comment from Veya, but that is clearly stating to bomb us and with Robots of all things


Think Ben owes Rags an apology

They Should treat EDL like ISIS... 'precision' bomb every member

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12593-tommy-robinson?highlight=tommy

Whatever one's view of the EDL, there's no excuse to say they should be bombed.

So then Ben?

[Raggamuffin]

So I didn't lie about that. Who else do you claim I've lied about "all the time"?

[Guest]

Just look at the countless posts by Veya on the English and british and sassy's views on the Israelis.
I suppose you forgot sexy's view that Hitler should have finished the Job I guess?
You see there is nothing worse than double standards, where people allow a hatred of a people because they have taken a bias view against them.

SM said that Hitler should have finished the job? FFS.

Yes she did during the last conflict with Gaza in 2014 and this is the problem I speak of antisemitism.
A huge proportion of Muslims are racist and to say to to make all jews culpable for the acts of Israel defense against an aggressive attack by Hamas, is the worst antisemitism going. Now if that had been said by one of the right wing supporters on here, they would have got an immediate ban, funny that. Like I say the left make allowances for racism dependent on who is being racist.
Only a hate of the Jews allows a person to then say such a thing about the holocaust.

[Original Quill]

And you are the one who is always opposing free speech.  Unfortunately for Europeans, who are opposed to freedom of expression, this is an American site.  America is governed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution:



And as Stormee pointed out, it feels refreshing, innit?

The person with the Founder's account is in America, but does that make this an American site?

The founder sets up the rules, and she or he has the board.  I didn't mean to deride, or flaunt the superiority of America.  I meant only that the rules will generally conform to American standards, one of which is freedom of expression.

[Raggamuffin]

The person with the Founder's account is in America, but does that make this an American site?

The founder sets up the rules, and she or he has the board.  I didn't mean to taunt or flaunt the superiority of America.  I meant only that the rules will generally conform to American standards, one of which is freedom of expression.

The founder doesn't own the database though, and Forumotion have their own rules.

[Guest]

The person with the Founder's account is in America, but does that make this an American site?

The founder sets up the rules, and she or he has the board.  I didn't mean to taunt or flaunt the superiority of America.  I meant only that the rules will generally conform to American standards, one of which is freedom of expression.

Racism again.

[Original Quill]

The founder sets up the rules, and she or he has the board.  I didn't mean to taunt or flaunt the superiority of America.  I meant only that the rules will generally conform to American standards, one of which is freedom of expression.

The founder doesn't own the database though, and Forumotion have their own rules.

Nevertheless.

[Syl]

The person with the Founder's account is in America, but does that make this an American site?

The founder sets up the rules, and she or he has the board.  I didn't mean to deride, or flaunt the superiority of America.  I meant only that the rules will generally conform to American standards, one of which is freedom of expression.

How come on British TV chat shows American guests are often taken aback at what is acceptable here and obviously not acceptable back home then?

[Raggamuffin]

I see Ben has failed to back up what he said. I guess that makes him the liar, not me.

[Raggamuffin]

The founder doesn't own the database though, and Forumotion have their own rules.

Nevertheless.

The point is that the American constitution doesn't really count in this context.

[Original Quill]

The founder sets up the rules, and she or he has the board.  I didn't mean to deride, or flaunt the superiority of America.  I meant only that the rules will generally conform to American standards, one of which is freedom of expression.

How come on British TV chat shows American guests are often taken aback at what is acceptable here and obviously not acceptable back home then?

I don't know to what you are referring. But there is a difference between rule-making, and mere reaction. I imagine that anytime cultures encounter one another, there are surprises.

[Syl]

How come on British TV chat shows American guests are often taken aback at what is acceptable here and obviously not acceptable back home then?

I don't know to what you are referring.  But there is a difference between rule-making, and mere reaction.  I imagine that anytime cultures encounter one another, there are surprises.

Well I was referring to the 'Freedom of expression' you mentioned Quill.
I watch a lot of Brit chat shows and it's not unusual to see an American guest taken aback at what is allowed to be said on Brit TV. It could be specific words used or subject matter....but I have heard a lot of "Wow, are we allowed to say that?" types of comments over the years.

[Original Quill]

Nevertheless.

The point is that the American constitution doesn't really count in this context.

I disagree. It is a predicate for the rule-making and enforcement of the site. Not in a legalistic sense, to be sure. But in the sense that what is considered 'right and proper' comes from our acculturation.

Americans have been raised on the idea that you fight words with words, not laws. This is generally referred to as 'open society' or 'free expression'. The source of this acculturation is the First Amendment of the Constitution. This legal principle is so much a part of the average American, that it is not just a law, but it permeates their very psyches.

[Ben Reilly]

We don't have inequality under the law for black people or gay people though, so your argument doesn't really work.

You forgot to mention the posts by your administrator, Veya, who regularly posts hate speeches about English people, and even said that some of them should be bombed.

Haha, forgive me, Raggs, but I'm going to need to see a link before I believe you on that one -- you lie about people here all the time, to be blunt.

Really? Tell me what lies I've told all the time about people here. You will back up what you just said won't you? After all, if you can't, that would make you a liar.

All the time you're calling me an IRA supporter, terrorist sympathizer, etc.

[Raggamuffin]

Really? Tell me what lies I've told all the time about people here. You will back up what you just said won't you? After all, if you can't, that would make you a liar.

All the time you're calling me an IRA supporter, terrorist sympathizer, etc.

That's not a lie - you do support the IRA.

[Ben Reilly]

Really? Tell me what lies I've told all the time about people here. You will back up what you just said won't you? After all, if you can't, that would make you a liar.

All the time you're calling me an IRA supporter, terrorist sympathizer, etc.

That's not a lie - you do support the IRA.

Yeah, it is, as I have denounced the IRA and all terrorist tactics on multiple threads here. You're a liar.

[Raggamuffin]

The point is that the American constitution doesn't really count in this context.

I disagree.  It is a predicate for the rule-making and enforcement of the site.  Not in a legalistic sense, to be sure.  But in the sense that what is considered 'right and proper' comes from our acculturation.

Americans have been raised on the idea that you fight words with words, not laws.  This is generally referred to as 'open society' or 'free expression'.  The source of this acculturation is the First Amendment of the Constitution.  This legal principle is so much a part of the average American, that it is not just a law, but it permeates their very psyches.  

The rules on this forum are pretty much the same as on most forums. Whether they're enforced or not seems to depend on who's perceived to be breaking them.

[Raggamuffin]

That's not a lie - you do support the IRA.

Yeah, it is, as I have denounced the IRA and all terrorist tactics on multiple threads here. You're a liar.

I'm not a liar, and you know it. You know how you excused the IRA after you posted that pro-IRA video.

[Ben Reilly]

That's not a lie - you do support the IRA.

Yeah, it is, as I have denounced the IRA and all terrorist tactics on multiple threads here. You're a liar.

I'm not a liar, and you know it. You know how you excused the IRA after you posted that pro-IRA video.  

No, I didn't. I said clearly that I denounce all terrorist acts. You're just spinning my statements into what you want them to be, because you want me to be a bad person who wants the English killed, but that's not me.

[Raggamuffin]

I'm not a liar, and you know it. You know how you excused the IRA after you posted that pro-IRA video.  

No, I didn't. I said clearly that I denounce all terrorist acts. You're just spinning my statements into what you want them to be, because you want me to be a bad person who wants the English killed, but that's not me.

You posted a pro-IRA video FFS. Then you implied that the English deserved to be blown up by the IRA because they "conquered" NI, and that it was understandable for the inhabitants to "resist".

[Original Quill]

I don't know to what you are referring.  But there is a difference between rule-making, and mere reaction.  I imagine that anytime cultures encounter one another, there are surprises.

Well I was referring to the 'Freedom of expression' you mentioned Quill.
I watch  a lot of Brit chat shows and it's not unusual to see an American guest taken aback at what is allowed to be said on Brit TV. It could be specific words used or subject matter....but I have heard a lot of "Wow, are we allowed to say that?" types of comments over the years.

I understand. I believe that is the distinction between rule-making and reaction. Certainly Americans can be as opinionated as anyone. That is human.

But rule-making has to do with legislating...laws, regulations, statutes, canons, or indeed, anyone in a rule-making role. That is a different activity. One recognizes when s/he is in a rule-making capacity, and follows the norms she or he has been taught. For example, the makers of the rules of this site, being American, are more likely to reject any kind of censorship--simply because it is a part of their acculturation.

Yes, Americans can privately be quite dogmatic. But another part of American acculturation is learning the difference between expression your own opinion, and legislating for others. In fact, free expression is partly responsible for Americans having more entrenched opinions and attitudes. For, to voice something is to engage in reduction of cognitive dissonance.

[Raggamuffin]

So about these "lies" that I tell about people on this forum "all the time". Care to post some examples?

[Ben Reilly]

I'm not a liar, and you know it. You know how you excused the IRA after you posted that pro-IRA video.  

No, I didn't. I said clearly that I denounce all terrorist acts. You're just spinning my statements into what you want them to be, because you want me to be a bad person who wants the English killed, but that's not me.

You posted a pro-IRA video FFS. Then you implied that the English deserved to be blown up by the IRA because they "conquered" NI, and that it was understandable for the inhabitants to "resist".

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

[Guest]

You posted a pro-IRA video FFS. Then you implied that the English deserved to be blown up by the IRA because they "conquered" NI, and that it was understandable for the inhabitants to "resist".

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

Well you did call her a liar, failed to back it up and Rags was telling the truth.
So man up and apologise

[Raggamuffin]

You posted a pro-IRA video FFS. Then you implied that the English deserved to be blown up by the IRA because they "conquered" NI, and that it was understandable for the inhabitants to "resist".

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

The IRA were targetting civilians on the mainland - people who didn't "conquer" them. The majority of people in NI want to be British. Get that through your thick head before you even attempt to justify those murderous IRA bastards.

You will never convince me that you're not an IRA supporter, and if you try, I'll call you a liar.

[Syl]

Well I was referring to the 'Freedom of expression' you mentioned Quill.
I watch  a lot of Brit chat shows and it's not unusual to see an American guest taken aback at what is allowed to be said on Brit TV. It could be specific words used or subject matter....but I have heard a lot of "Wow, are we allowed to say that?" types of comments over the years.

I understand.  I believe that is the distinction between rule-making and reaction.  Certainly Americans can be as opinionated as anyone.  That is human.

But rule-making has to do with legislating...laws, regulations, statutes, canons, or indeed, anyone in a rule-making role.  That is a different activity.  One recognizes when s/he is in a rule-making capacity, and follows the norms she or he has been taught.  For example, the makers of the rules of this site, being American, are more likely to reject any kind of censorship--simply because it is a part of their acculturation.

Yes, Americans can privately be quite dogmatic.  But another part of American acculturation is learning the difference between expression your own opinion, and legislating for others.  In fact, free expression is partly responsible for Americans having more entrenched opinions and attitudes.  For, to voice something is to engage in reduction of cognitive dissonance.  

I will have to read this a couple of times before it all makes sense to me Quill, but thanks for the explanation,

[Guest]

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

The IRA were targetting civilians on the mainland - people who didn't "conquer" them. The majority of people in NI want to be British. Get that through your thick head before you even attempt to justify those murderous IRA bastards.

You will never convince me that you're not an IRA supporter, and if you try, I'll call you a liar.

Not quite true, the British and English did conquer them on many occasions, which goes to my points on the fellow celts being traitors in the Scots who took land the English confiscated from the Irish. It is many of these descendents of Scots who make up the Northern Irish today who are Prodestant. Though Bens is also wrong that the IRA did also target many civilians and had no problem taking out any Irish Catholics with assassinations they deemed in league with the British. The Irish also did suffer from the Black and tans, but the IRA os the middle to late 20th century was abhorant and murderers.

[Raggamuffin]

I'm sure the families of those murdered by the IRA would be very surprised to hear that they'd "conquered" another nation.

Wanker.

[Raggamuffin]

The man makes me sick.

[Ben Reilly]

You posted a pro-IRA video FFS. Then you implied that the English deserved to be blown up by the IRA because they "conquered" NI, and that it was understandable for the inhabitants to "resist".

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

The IRA were targetting civilians on the mainland - people who didn't "conquer" them. The majority of people in NI want to be British. Get that through your thick head before you even attempt to justify those murderous IRA bastards.

You will never convince me that you're not an IRA supporter, and if you try, I'll call you a liar.

Well, I was perfectly clear, and that just tells me you're a silly person who I don't have to worry about. Have a nice day!

[Guest]

I'm sure the families of those murdered by the IRA would be very surprised to hear that they'd "conquered" another nation.

Wanker.

Two of my Irish uncles, both Catholics, were murdered by the IRA
Yanks of Irish descent tend to have a very poor grasp of Irish history I am afraid, so its not his fault, he just is that ignorant on the subject

[Ben Reilly]

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

The IRA were targetting civilians on the mainland - people who didn't "conquer" them. The majority of people in NI want to be British. Get that through your thick head before you even attempt to justify those murderous IRA bastards.

You will never convince me that you're not an IRA supporter, and if you try, I'll call you a liar.

Not quite true, the British and English did conquer them on many occasions, which goes to my points on the fellow celts being traitors in the Scots who took land the English confiscated from the Irish. It is many of these descendents of Scots who make up the Northern Irish today who are Prodestant. Though Bens is also wrong that the IRA did also target many civilians and had no problem taking out any Irish Catholics with assassinations they deemed in league with the British. The Irish also did suffer from the Black and tans, but the IRA os the middle to late 20th century was abhorant and murderers.

Where the fuck did I say the IRA did not target civilians?

That's the main reason why I can't support them.

[Syl]

You posted a pro-IRA video FFS. Then you implied that the English deserved to be blown up by the IRA because they "conquered" NI, and that it was understandable for the inhabitants to "resist".

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

I wasn't a member here when you posted that vid....I was about to join and it put me off for a couple of weeks.
I carried on reading though and am glad I didn't let that vid put me off completely because I like this forum so far.
I'm happy to see you say you posted it in anger.

Just to add .. having posted with her for years, and we often dont agree with one another,but  I have never seen Raggamuffin deliberately lie about anyone.

[Raggamuffin]

The IRA were targetting civilians on the mainland - people who didn't "conquer" them. The majority of people in NI want to be British. Get that through your thick head before you even attempt to justify those murderous IRA bastards.

You will never convince me that you're not an IRA supporter, and if you try, I'll call you a liar.

Well, I was perfectly clear, and that just tells me you're a silly person who I don't have to worry about. Have a nice day!

Yes, you made it perfectly clear that you support the murder of people by terrorism. You sit here bleating on about "bigots" and "prejudice", and you never seem to see any posts which are anti-English.

[Guest]

Not quite true, the British and English did conquer them on many occasions, which goes to my points on the fellow celts being traitors in the Scots who took land the English confiscated from the Irish. It is many of these descendents of Scots who make up the Northern Irish today who are Prodestant. Though Bens is also wrong that the IRA did also target many civilians and had no problem taking out any Irish Catholics with assassinations they deemed in league with the British. The Irish also did suffer from the Black and tans, but the IRA os the middle to late 20th century was abhorant and murderers.

Where the fuck did I say the IRA did not target civilians?

That's the main reason why I can't support them.

Calm down pee wee, you did say you understood their armed action.
Sorry I do not, as you can obtain peace with democratic nations.

[Raggamuffin]

I never said the English deserved to be blown up -- at least not civilians. I do completely understand how a conquered nation would resist its occupiers and not capitulate.

But I've never condoned terrorism, and I explained that I posted that video out of anger. Actually, I've explained this several times -- I think you just enjoy trying to paint me into a corner where I have to do it over and over again.

I wasn't a member here when you posted that vid....I was about to join and it put me off for a couple of weeks.
I carried on reading though and am glad I didn't let that vid put me off completely because I like this forum so far.
I'm happy to see you say you posted it in anger.

Just to add I having posted with her for years, and we often dont agree with one another,but  I have never seen Raggamuffin deliberately lie about anyone.

Thank you Syl.

He allegedly posted it in anger against someone he'd just banned, so they couldn't reply anyway, and then he ranted on and on about how awful the Brits are.

[Ben Reilly]

Not quite true, the British and English did conquer them on many occasions, which goes to my points on the fellow celts being traitors in the Scots who took land the English confiscated from the Irish. It is many of these descendents of Scots who make up the Northern Irish today who are Prodestant. Though Bens is also wrong that the IRA did also target many civilians and had no problem taking out any Irish Catholics with assassinations they deemed in league with the British. The Irish also did suffer from the Black and tans, but the IRA os the middle to late 20th century was abhorant and murderers.

Where the fuck did I say the IRA did not target civilians?

That's the main reason why I can't support them.

Calm down pee wee, you did say you understood their armed action.
Sorry I do not, as you can obtain peace with democratic nations.

I understand that conquered people will use violence to regain their freedom -- if you don't understand this, what can I say?

I never said the IRA was justified in murdering civilians, but that I understand the fundamental principle of attacking those who are trying to take your land from you.

Or should the Middle East just cower and let ISIS create its new caliphate?

[Raggamuffin]

Calm down pee wee, you did say you understood their armed action.
Sorry I do not, as you can obtain peace with democratic nations.

I understand that conquered people will use violence to regain their freedom -- if you don't understand this, what can I say?

I never said the IRA was justified in murdering civilians, but that I understand the fundamental principle of attacking those who are trying to take your land from you.

Or should the Middle East just cower and let ISIS create its new caliphate?

Why don't you just admit that you're an IRA supporter and have done with it? That's exactly what you are. Did you help to fund them?

[Sponsored content]