We are getting off line here, the Ireland/England situation (like it or not) was about rule of a country. The situation we face today is about fanatics wanting to dictate how a whole world can act or speak.
Funny one that aint it , but if I say to you that chinks eat dogs , thats you off crying to get me banned because chink is derogatory in your eyes the quarter slanty ones. we can all be pricks if it comes to it but its ok to be pricks to paddy cos hes to thick to grasp it , is the general feeling on this thread. grow the **** up , at a guess id say liverpool is 50% irish ffs would you stand on a street corner declaring your laughter at the Irish Hunger ?
Sorry saint, jumped the gun. I have read the reply you wrote while i was typing and withdraw my comment with apollogie
Fairytale? That comment is like denying the holocaust Dave, so the Irish Diaspora in the 1840s-50s happened because a million Irish wanted a change of scenery and the million dead through starvation were on diets that went wrong eh.
Get off your high horse you daft **** It was nothing more than a lighthearted comment that was in the context of the debate
because its basically the same thing. the scum said the fans done it. your saying paddy starved himself when official records will show that the catholic irish were forced off their land and made to live as second class citizens. but you still think a thick paddy didnt realise there was other food , the problem is thick paddy wasnt allowed grow any other food or own livestock same as the truth came out in Hillsborough but still people believe that rags version. thats what im getting at , hope it makes sense to you.
aye , it was those islamic paddies that starved thats why the muslims killed French people today. I see now how it was in context and I wholly apologise and top o da mornin sir. begorrah to be sure
Yeh I share your sentiment. I'll probably go a bit further and say I've never understood the need to ridicule other people's religion. Maybe it's because I was brought up to respect other people's faiths or bcos I feel that by doing so I must in some way be displaying a dislike for them. And to have that opinion of a whole group of people, how bloody stupid is that. Those who carried out these atrocities have absolutely NO justification for doing what they have. Clearly fanatics and murderous scum. But here's the thing being missed....their crime doesn't now justify the ridiculing and deliberately offending others. These people who are now pushing the "right to offend" movement are using the killings to push something which is also wrong. It's as if they're saying, well if you don't like terorists then you should support the "right to offend". And some people seem to think that objecting to this "right to offend" means that you must be siding with the extremists, when actually it's nothing of the sort. BTW those who are tarring a whole group of people based on the actions of a few lunatics should look closer to home. Would they say that the lunatic hooligans who occupied the stands of their grounds in the violent days of the 70's and 80's represented them or their football club? And those idiots didn't need offending, they just needed a fixture. And before anyone says we offend as football fans, well football is a tribal thing and feeds off rivalry which in turn leads to good banter, wummery and regular verbal abuse. But the diverse religious (or non-religious) beliefs of 7 billion people around the world requires no rivalry and as such isn't about any of those things. I would turn the argument on its head and say some things do require the need to offend, but religion by its very nature isn't one of them.
Try reading the thread before wading in talking ****e I posted that nonsense comment in response to sisu's ridiculous comment about the colonial Brits and how I needed to understand my own country's history
Try telling Seamus Coleman a famine joke next time you bump into him sure its only banter. Id be willing to bet youd be left looking like al pacino with a scar on face.
