British soldier killed on street in London

Post Reply New Topic

Piece in that "Zionist" website, The Commentator:

Hello Sylkat,

Ireland was first invaded by the english normans under William of Orange, in the 12th century and was ruled by britain for 700+ years. The aim was to rule and subject the population to taxation rather than integrate. The north and south separated in 1922 and the Irish republic came in to being in 1937 with violent struggles continuing up until recently. Many Irish emigrated to England, Scotland and America to avoid the oppression and starvation due to introduced cash crop failure. The IRA are a bunch of gangsters operating under a political banner.

Muslim immigration has mostly occurred within the last 50 years, I do not believe that a large proportion are arabic. Most would be from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and North Africa. Immigration rights were given to many of these people due to the legacy of the British empire. In my opinion the radical muslims are just another bunch of gangsters operating under a religious banner.

Best regards.

Bollocks. English settlement goes back to the 11th century. William III won at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, well over 500 years after the first original Norman English settlement in Ireland.



Quite a lot of Northern Irish people left Northern Ireland due to the sectarian violence, intimidation and conflict. Many came to England.



OIRA? PIRA? CIRA? War of Independence-era IRA? RIRA? ONH? And so on.



Quite a number of them are from Nigeria and Somalia, too. But in Northern England they're mainly from South Asia.

Fact check - Normans invaded Ireland in 1169, otherwise known as the 12th century.
Apologies for the bollocks written about William of Orange.

You could also argue that a lot of people from Northern Ireland left due to the ret*d economy, a direct result of the "struggles".

I don't think the argument of which irish group, either republican or unionist, was the most gangsterish is relevant to the topic.

South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan as far as I know?

I think that I probably should have put quotation marks throughout my posts.

The IRA THOUGHT that they were going to drive their (perceived) occupiers out by acts of terrorism. They really believed that 'all the Brits' could be chased out of Ireland, notwithstanding the centuries that some had been there.

They (IRA, Sinn Fein) really believed that they could return Ireland to a rural, Catholic Golden Age that never really existed.

The contemporary Muslims willingly went to another country with its own culture, religion, language, etc, and now they want to change it to mirror what many (most) of them had desperately wanted to escape!

Over-simplification, yes, but when you ask to move in with another family, or you move in to an apartment with other roommates who have established their routines, you familiarize yourself with the rules, then you follow them.

If you do not like the situation, you move out.

Or you do not move in in the first place, if you cannot or will not live by the rules.

Sylkat

The Ulster Protestant (aligned with Unionism and Britain) population has lived in Ireland for over 300 years. They're not going away.

When the contemporary muslims immigration started in the 1950's they were coming from abject poverty to a state with funded housing, health care and unemployment benefits. As the only thing they wanted to escape from was financial issues, the cultural identity was very strongly retained, as could be expected in a foreign land.

I don't think that the green land of England was the utopia that was expected, but still better than going back to where they came from. The country was still under rationing and badly damaged and in debt from the second world war at this point. Many did not welcome the immigrants and insular communities evolved.

I agree with your analogy about the house share. I have been in that situation myself in the past where I had to throw someone out of a house because they became so anti-social.

I just do not see a solution. Government response: a new committee has been formed and a bill for electronic surveillance is being resurrected.

One big issue is that there is a massive disaffected attitude for many youths, the future seems bleak. These, mostly young men, are ripe pickings for extremists, of whatever persuasion, who promise an alternative. I can guarantee that regular politics is not providing answers.

I hope that this doesn't happen. Racist nationalism or racist religious fundamentalism will only beget more. Extremism breeds more extremism.

That said, I can see a massive rise in support for the Sweden Democrats in response to the silence, lies and deliberate obfuscation by Sweden's political leaders about the Stockholm riots.

If they end up with double the seats they have now, I would not be surprised. Support for the SD has been falling in the opinion polls, but this could cause it to rise again.

It happens, it is happening now and it will continue to happening. This disaffection is also part of the reason that young girls are easily groomed and coerced by pedophiles.

I'm not going to comment on the Swedish situation as i have not been following it.

What I meant is that it could get far more serious and murderous.

I thought we had already established that.

What I principally meant was that elements of the white far-right here could turn far more violent and sinister, rather than the (relatively) harmless and pathetic EDL drunk beer-belly types.

I'd rather have the EDL and a man like Tommy Robinson (who is a buffoon, and often does himself and his cause more harm than good by his actions) as the 'bad guys' than Nazi terrorist bombers massacring Muslims in mosques.

And the circle has been closed.

Agreed. As much as i detest the EDL, that piece of s**t Anjem Choudary is about as welcome in this country as a fly in a kitchen, and he serves the same purpose: a poison spreading nuisance who makes people sick.

Are you sure of that? Perhaps you should look up the rules of engagement sometime.

Let's put it to you this way. If soldiers are attacked by anyone, even if they happen to be insurgents that don't have military uniforms or if they are threatened with car bombs or suicide bomber's etc, then they can defend themselves. However, an unarmed man in civilian clothes and who is no threat to you, counts as a civilian, even if he's works as a soldier. There's a huge difference between shooting someone who could detonate a suicide bomb at any moment and decapitating an unarmed man in the streets of London. Does that make any sense to you?

So yes, even if it something like this was done by legitimate soldiers in the middle of a war, an act like this would not be acceptable. That assumes of course, that the people committing the act were in fact legitimate soldier fighting as part of a legitimate army, which they are not. The people who did this are considered civilians and are therefore common criminals and terrorists, simple as that. The fact that you are willing to defend such a disgusting act reveals your hypocrisy considering that you are the one who often screams bloody murder every time the Israeli military does something that is not too Kosher either. I'm too surprised by this hypocrisy though since it is a common trait among many anti-semites.