Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Options
1…5681011…13

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Yeah, it was a bit Big and Shouty alright :o

    Yes- I thought you were boasting for a minute. (Dont worry Im only joking or should I say 'joking')


  • Options
    #213
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »

    It's far from an absurd fascination. You are incorrect in the belief that irony quotes are required when discussing crimes of totalitarian regimes in cases where no specific event is singled out. To illustrate this please read the articles this thread is based upon :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

    &

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475

    You will see neither the BBC or the Guardian agree with your application of irony quotes around the word crimes. This seems plain as day to me so I do not understand your refusal to acknowledge this. Put it another way - if I started a thread tomorrow and said :

    I think it could be interesting to discuss the role of the SS on the Eastern front particularly 'crimes' in the southern sector.

    or

    This thread is to discuss Ordnungspolizei 'crimes' against jews in occuppied europe.

    There would be an uproar in both cases as adding those quotes clearly seeks to question the criminality when there is no question about it. Nor is there an obligation to put the word crimes in quotes as no specific single event is referenced. You are simply mistaken on this one. I believe if people began posting on here in the manner I mentioned to do with the third reich in the way you do about the communist regime then there would be bans handed out in record time.

    I don't think this argument is an integral part of this discussion but as you keep bringing it up I will try and respond again as I think there is misunderstanding of my intent. There is no attempt in my use of these marks to take away from any type of wrong doing.
    Firstly, It is you who calls them 'irony' quotes. I did not use them as irony quotes. I used them because they were not defined, not because I doubt there are actual crimes. I will not make such a sweeping overview of sections of history that all reported wrong doings are crimes/ 'crimes'.
    Secondly, you quoted the black book of communism. I think it is fair therefore for me to use this book as an example of similar use of quote marks.
    6034073
    exert pg 94.
    My question is simple. Do you think from the above exert that the author is doubting that the involved people are bandits (where he quotes the word)? My point being that this is in line with your disdainful view on my use of quote marks.


  • Options
    #214
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I don't this argument is an integral part of this discussion but as you keep bringing it up I will respond again.
    Firstly, It is you who calls them 'irony' quotes. I did not use them as irony quotes. I used them because they were not defined, not because I doubt there are actual crimes. I will not make such a sweeping overview of sections of history that all reported wrong doings are crimes/ 'crimes'.
    Secondly, you quoted the black book of communism. I think it is fair therefore for me to use this book as an example of similar use of quote marks.
    6034073
    exert pg 94.
    My question is simple. Do you think from the above exert that the author is doubting that the involved people are bandits (where he quotes the word)? My point being that this is in line with your disdainful view on my use of quote marks.

    2 things which should be simple, one that book (or rather the wiki page of that book) was quoted to quickly illustrate the breadth of communist crimes across countries and across decades as there seemed to be a blind spot in this regard. It was a quick simplistic source to use - it is not to be taken to be the Supreme example in all respects with regard to this thread or this discussion or correct use of quote marks in a historical discussion.

    The fact that the author may use quotes within that book is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

    Per the BBC article and the Guardian one above, and per the Ordnungspolizei and SS examples quoted above there is no place for them on this thread, it is not gramatically correct to insert them on the basis that no specific single crime is referenced. The BBC and the Guardian and the rest of the world do not do this and it is incorrect for you to do so. Regardless of what may or may not be on pg94 of a book for which the wikipedia page was used as a quick reference.


  • Options
    #215
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    2 things which should be simple, one that book (or rather the wiki page of that book) was quoted to quickly illustrate the breadth of communist crimes across countries and across decades as there seemed to be a blind spot in this regard. It was a quick simplistic source to use - it is not to be taken to be the Supreme example in all respects with regard to this thread or this discussion or correct use of quote marks in a historical discussion.

    The fact that the author may use quotes within that book is utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

    I used your own source so that you could not say I was being biased with my example. Nothing supreme about that, simply using your own source to prove my own point. If you are going to insist on a standard of launguage to be used in a thread then I think you should not use sources that do not meet your own standards. The fact that I am very familiar with the source you linked to has not helped you here. wikipedia can be helpful but using its links to books that you are not familiar with is not a good way to make your argument. If you don't have it but would like to see Stéphane Courtois's book on Communism PM me and I will be able to help out. It is excellent in its dealing with facts but covers alot of information outside of that which this thread covers.

    And regarding your last sentence, it is clear that I have given an example in published literature on this subject that it is not uncommon for quote marks to be used. Therefore it is 100% relevant to the conversation given your query on my use of these quote marks.


  • Options
    #216
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I used your own source so that you could not say I was being biased with my example. Nothing supreme about that, simply using your own source to prove my own point. If you are going to insist on a standard of launguage to be used in a thread then I think you should not use sources that do not meet your own standards. The fact that I am very familiar with the source you linked to has not helped you here. wikipedia can be helpful but using its links to books that you are not familiar with is not a good way to make your argument. If you don't have it but would like to see Stéphane Courtois's book on Communism PM me and I will be able to help out. It is excellent in its dealing with facts but covers alot of information outside of that which this thread covers.

    And regarding your last sentence, it is clear that I have given an example in published literature on this subject that it is not uncommon for quote marks to be used. Therefore it is 100% relevant to the conversation given your query on my use of these quote marks.

    Here for reference is where this book entered this thread. A link to it's webpage, "Here is a Quick Link for you to Read", not - "This book should be taken as a supreme example for the use of Grammar in a historical discussion" - It is clearly not a supreme source for the use of grammar in a historical discussion, nor is it presented as such for you to attempt to paint it in this way is weak and unconvincing ;
    Morlar wrote: »
    Here is a quick link for you to read and absorb - tell me the percentage of these victims who fall into the category of 'retalliatory' :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism


    As illustrated multiple times, it is a ludicrous proposition to add quote marks to the word Crimes in the sentence 'Crimes of communist regime', the BBC do not do this, the Guardian do not do this.

    If I was to begin to do that in relation to other aspects of WW2 it would clearly cause an uproar. For you to do thsi betrays a certain bias on your part that is increasingly clear as this thread progresses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    It's possible we have different versions of that book, here is pg 94 of mine and the only use of quote marks on that page - this does not reinforce your 'point'. The use of quote marks is clearly mean to infer that the word is incorrectly used, or there is some element of doubt over it's use.

    It is clearly (in this case) raising doubts over whether or not these are actually "Bandits" or not

    attachment.php?attachmentid=144310&d=1295524226


  • Options
    #218
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    FYI rather than derail this thread further I have peeled off the issue of use of irony quotes into a seperate dedicated thread on the History and Heritage forum - as this discussion has gone on far too long and can hopefully be more easily dealt with in it's own dedicated thread :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056153734


  • Options
    #219
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Morlar wrote: »
    My point is outlined in plain english in multiple posts across this thread.

    If you are going to simply click on the quote button and add a one liner question in response to lengthy, considered replies then that is not a positive or construcive approach to this discussion in my view.

    I am utterly confused at this stage, The thread is about the double standard in by eu re Holocaust denial viv a vis Communinst regime crimes denial ?

    I point out the the EU does not have a double standard as it has not now ,nor does it intend to to have either form of legislation,

    I point out this is a single standard not a double standard and so they are completely consistant.

    So, forget with the posting instruction please, all the various other, by you ,Me , depaly marcsignal, are actually off the point ig my statement is correct.

    There is no double standard by the EU.


  • Options
    #220
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    marienbad wrote: »
    I am utterly confused at this stage, The thread is about the double standard in by eu re Holocaust denial viv a vis Communinst regime crimes denial ?

    I point out the the EU does not have a double standard as it has not now ,nor does it intend to to have either form of legislation,

    I point out this is a single standard not a double standard and so they are completely consistant.

    So, forget with the posting instruction please, all the various other, by you ,Me , depaly marcsignal, are actually off the point ig my statement is correct.

    There is no double standard by the EU.

    Are crimes of either regime treated in the same manner ?

    If there was no Double standard then crimes of either regime would be treated in the same manner.

    Please read the Guardian article and the bbc one at the top of this thread. It is not a requirement for h.d legislation to be enforced in 100% of eu countries for this to be correct.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

    The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475


  • Options
    #221
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Morlar wrote: »
    Are crimes of either regime treated in the same manner ?

    If there was no Double standard then crimes of either regime would be treated in the same manner.

    Please read the Guardian article and the bbc one at the top of this thread. It is not a requirement for h.d legislation to be enforced in 100% of eu countries for this to be correct.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

    The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475


    Plese forgive me answering you in a one liner Morlar - but you have it wrong. For the EU to enact this law as the Eu- that would be a double standard.

    Certain countries have enacted holocaust laws , certain countries have enacted communist crime laws, certain countries have enacted both,
    Surely your argument is with those countries that have only enacted just one tfpe of law. The Eu by enacting none is uninvolved


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    marienbad wrote: »
    Plese forgive me answering you in a one liner Morlar - but you have it wrong. For the EU to enact this law as the Eu- that would be a double standard.

    Certain countries have enacted holocaust laws , certain countries have enacted communist crime laws, certain countries have enacted both,
    Surely your argument is with those countries that have only enacted just one tfpe of law. The Eu by enacting none is uninvolved

    Please refer to post#1 of this thread :
    Morlar wrote: »
    *

    Double standard in relation to the repeated attempts to introduce so called holocaust denial legislation across the rest of europe while deeming communist warcrimes, rape, murder, genocide and mass repression as 'political therefore local and not an eu wide matter'

    In order for there to be a double standard there is no requirement for holocaust denial legislation to be in place in ALL countries of the eu. You are ignoring the repeated attempts to have this enacted btw. The double standard would be the difference in how crimes of regimes are treated. If there is no double standard then crimes of either regime are treated in the same manner - they are not. Uniformity within the eu is not a requirement in order to use the phrase double standard - this seems a flimsy proposition in my view and one that seeks to ignore the overwhelming reality of the current situation on the flimsiest of basis.


  • Options
    #223
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    It's possible we have different versions of that book, here is pg 94 of mine and the only use of quote marks on that page - this does not reinforce your 'point'. The use of quote marks is clearly mean to infer that the word is incorrectly used, or there is some element of doubt over it's use.

    It is clearly (in this case) raising doubts over whether or not these are actually "Bandits" or not

    attachment.php?attachmentid=144310&d=1295524226

    Are you taking the P? Your scanned image starts after the line I refered to.


  • Options
    #224
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Are you taking the P? Your scanned image starts after the line I refered to.

    Here is the top half of that page and no I am not taking the piss, you were too busy to mention the specific reference you refer to - I looked for the word bandits in quote and highlighted it in red - here is the rest of that page.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=144325&d=1295533552


  • Options
    #225
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Morlar wrote: »
    Please refer to post#1 of this thread :



    In order for there to be a double standard there is no requirement for holocaust denial legislation to be in place in ALL countries of the eu. You are ignoring the repeated attempts to have this enacted btw. The double standard would be the difference in how crimes of regimes are treated. If there is no double standard then crimes of either regime are treated in the same manner - they are not. Uniformity within the eu is not a requirement in order to use the phrase double standard - this seems a flimsy proposition in my view and one that seeks to ignore the overwhelming reality of the current situation on the flimsiest of basis.

    And I would refer you to your own attachement in post no 1, a request was made to the Eu to make Communist ars crimes denial a crime, they refused but ageed that indivdual states could do so if they wished. They were therefore untimately ubholding a single standard.

    If certain countries do have Holocaust denial laws and certain countries have communist crimes denial laws and certain countries have both,
    what has that got to do with the EU ? At least they are consistant.

    As for efforts to make certain issues into law, so what ?? the is the nature of democracy


  • Options
    #226
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    Here for reference is where this book entered this thread. A link to it's webpage, "Here is a Quick Link for you to Read", not - "This book should be taken as a supreme example for the use of Grammar in a historical discussion" - It is clearly not a supreme source for the use of grammar in a historical discussion, nor is it presented as such for you to attempt to paint it in this way is weak and unconvincing ;

    As illustrated multiple times, it is a ludicrous proposition to add quote marks to the word Crimes in the sentence 'Crimes of communist regime', the BBC do not do this, the Guardian do not do this.
    .
    OK. So the book you linked to is not a supreme example of grammar but the BBC and the Guardian are???

    You are making this thread farcical with this type of comment. I have no interest in continuing this bickering over grammar particularly in the vein you take it.
    Morlar wrote: »
    If I was to begin to do that in relation to other aspects of WW2 it would clearly cause an uproar. For you to do thsi betrays a certain bias on your part that is increasingly clear as this thread progresses.


    We all have our bias Morlar, some more than others. Perhaps you feel that your views are neutral based on that comment.


  • Options
    #227
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    OK. So the book you linked to is not a supreme example of grammar but the BBC and the Guardian are???

    You are making this thread farcical with this type of comment. I have no interest in continuing this bickering over grammar particularly in the vein you take it.

    I'd prefer to keep the discussion on the correct use of so-called irony quotes off this thread if at all possible. This is an important subject and it deserves a thread that reflects this.


  • Options
    #228
    marcsignal
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    @ marienbad the Germans are hell bent on rolling out their HD laws throughout the EU in the future, if they had their way, they would already be here.

    As it stands, it's bizarre to think, that I can say something in the Departures lounge in Dublin Airport without any problems, and then get on a 2 hour flight, and repeat the same thing in the Arrivals hall at Munich Airport, and get a spell in the clink. Do you not agree that's a bit nuts?

    on a seperate issue

    as for 'quotes', i often use them, but not always in an ironic context, but rather for emphasis.
    If this causes any confusion I'll use italics instead.


  • Options
    #229
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Morlar wrote: »
    Please refer to post#1 of this thread :



    In order for there to be a double standard there is no requirement for holocaust denial legislation to be in place in ALL countries of the eu. You are ignoring the repeated attempts to have this enacted btw. The double standard would be the difference in how crimes of regimes are treated. If there is no double standard then crimes of either regime are treated in the same manner - they are not. Uniformity within the eu is not a requirement in order to use the phrase double standard - this seems a flimsy proposition in my view and one that seeks to ignore the overwhelming reality of the current situation on the flimsiest of basis.

    That is meaningless, you cant hold the EU accountable for anomalies in individual countries, As it stands the Eu as the EU does not have a double standard which is what your opening post implied.

    If you want to go through country by country , fine, but why limit it to Europe , why limit it to the 20th century, etc etc


  • Options
    #230
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,273 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    marcsignal wrote: »
    As it stands, it's bizarre to think, that I can say something in the Departures lounge in Dublin Airport without any problems, and then get on a 2 hour flight, and repeat the same thing in the Arrivals hall at Munich Airport, and get a spell in the clink. Do you not agree that's a bit nuts?

    You kidding? Try saying something negative about the King of Thailand in Kuala Lumpar, then hop on an airplane for an hour and say the same thing in Bangkok. Didn't a Swiss guy get life for accidentally ripping a poster of the King when he was drunk? Something being legal in one place and illegal in another is hardly surprising or new.

    My issue with the German laws regarding the era is the swastika ban. It's just downright silly if someone who wants to make a historically accurate model of a WWII Luftwaffe fighter has to mail order from the US or Japan in order to get decals for the tail. The Germans have a law saying it's illegal to deny history, then also put forward a law preventing you from being historical.

    NTM


  • Options
    #231
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    You kidding? Try saying something negative about the King of Thailand in Kuala Lumpar, then hop on an airplane for an hour and say the same thing in Bangkok. Didn't a Swiss guy get life for accidentally ripping a poster of the King when he was drunk? Something being legal in one place and illegal in another is hardly surprising or new.

    My issue with the German laws regarding the era is the swastika ban. It's just downright silly if someone who wants to make a historically accurate model of a WWII Luftwaffe fighter has to mail order from the US or Japan in order to get decals for the tail. The Germans have a law saying it's illegal to deny history, then also put forward a law preventing you from being historical.

    NTM

    There was also someone threatened with a public caning for incorrectly disposing of chewing gum in singapore iirc.

    Not to go too far off topic but I have also heard of a ww2 militaria collector of photographs who was hauled down to the police station undressed and photographed for tatoos and given a whack of a fine (this proved too costly to legally contest) because he had a website for the study of period photographs. The problem was that some of the photographs showed an armband or a plane tail here and there which contained the hakenkreuz. Put it down to bias if you like but personally I would not be overly surpirsed that some parts of the wolrd have wacky laws - when it is within the eu it makes it a lot closer to home culturally, politically and geographically.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    marcsignal
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    You kidding? Try saying something negative about the King of Thailand in Kuala Lumpar, then hop on an airplane for an hour and say the same thing in Bangkok. Didn't a Swiss guy get life for accidentally ripping a poster of the King when he was drunk? Something being legal in one place and illegal in another is hardly surprising or new.

    Seriously, in summer 2004 I was sitting in the Hofgarten Beer Garden in Munich with a mixed group of people, having a pint and a snack. The subject came around to the Iraq war, rendition flights, and Gitmo. One of the lads remarked that, in his opinion, he'd rather be interred in Dachau before the war, than in Gitmo today. The rest of the conversation drifted around this subject. 15 minutes later 2 plain clothes police arrived at our table, telling us they had recieved a complaint from another customer, that we were playing down the Holocaust. Names were taken, but we were allowed go on our way.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    My issue with the German laws regarding the era is the swastika ban. It's just downright silly if someone who wants to make a historically accurate model of a WWII Luftwaffe fighter has to mail order from the US or Japan in order to get decals for the tail. The Germans have a law saying it's illegal to deny history, then also put forward a law preventing you from being historical.

    NTM

    Yeah, it's off the wall. I'm aquainted with another man, who had a piece of Asian jewellery adorned with a swastika, and had it confiscated at the airport on his return home. It's even forbidden to wear this on a t-shirt or button badge, because it contains a swastika, and that's internationally recognised as an Anti Fascist symbol.


  • Options
    #233
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    marienbad wrote: »
    P.S we should include more of the Pacific theatre in this discussion

    The word EU is in the thread title for a reason, as this is an EU initiative relating to EU countries and EU laws/proposed changes to EU law. So personally I think it makes sense to keep the overall thrust of the thread focused within the eu.


  • Options
    #234
    marcsignal
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    The more I think about the HD laws in Germany, the more I have to try not to laugh.

    They bring in a law, because they say they want to prevent the country, from turning back into the kind of country, that would bring in similar laws :confused::D


  • Options
    #235
    depaly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭depaly


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    iots clear that you do at least seem to Understand 'My Ramblings' as you put it, however its still not clear if you are willing to actually engage in Discussion or if you are memely here to Deflect questions and Stir at the Outrage til The Hasbra Shills have their way and get the thread closed as a Moral Victory over the Nasty ''Holocaust Obfuscators''

    All very dramatic......

    Who or what are 'Hasbra Shills'???????????


  • Options
    #236
    depaly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭depaly


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Absolutley, now you seem to be graspin the concept ;)

    Caeucescu for example is one I'd like to see some EU Level trials for the peope who facilitated that regieme and all its Lunacy, whilst they are still Fit enough to be tried

    You have missed my point....

    After the 8th or 9th 'regime' had
    been dealt with - these 'declarations'
    would lose all their significance
    and power, I suggest.

    In any event, there's nothing 'unique'
    about most, or any of them - unlike the
    Holocaust.


  • Options
    #237
    depaly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭depaly


    marcsignal wrote: »
    @ marienbad the Germans are hell bent on rolling out their HD laws throughout the EU in the future, if they had their way, they would already be here.

    As it stands, it's bizarre to think, that I can say something in the Departures lounge in Dublin Airport without any problems, and then get on a 2 hour flight, and repeat the same thing in the Arrivals hall at Munich Airport, and get a spell in the clink. Do you not agree that's a bit nuts?

    on a seperate issue

    as for 'quotes', i often use them, but not always in an ironic context, but rather for emphasis.
    If this causes any confusion I'll use italics instead.


    Yesterday, it was exclamation marks.
    Today, it's quotes and italics.

    And Morlar is concerned with 'the use of grammar
    in a historical discussion'!!!!!!!!

    This tedious pedantry will turn people off
    the thread......


  • Options
    #238
    depaly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭depaly


    marcsignal wrote: »
    Seriously, in summer 2004 I was sitting in the Hofgarten Beer Garden in Munich with a mixed group of people, having a pint and a snack. The subject came around to the Iraq war, rendition flights, and Gitmo. One of the lads remarked that, in his opinion, he'd rather be interred in Dachau before the war, than in Gitmo today. The rest of the conversation drifted around this subject. 15 minutes later 2 plain clothes police arrived at our table, telling us they had recieved a complaint from another customer, that we were playing down the Holocaust. Names were taken, but we were allowed go on our way.



    Yeah, it's off the wall. I'm aquainted with another man, who had a piece of Asian jewellery adorned with a swastika, and had it confiscated at the airport on his return home. It's even forbidden to wear this on a t-shirt or button badge, because it contains a swastika, and that's internationally recognised as an Anti Fascist symbol.


    'One of the lads' was just showing the kind of
    ignorance, stupidity and insensitivity that's par
    for the course when discussions on the Holocaust
    and various foreign conflicts are in train.

    Yet if a Brit or anyone else gives a contrary view
    to the 'sacred cows' of Irish Nationalism, then a
    sense of outrage and political correctness is soon
    rediscovered. There might be an attempt to do
    more than take names!!!!
    Our self-declared love of free speech might
    take a back seat!!!!

    I find that Israel and the Middle East conflict
    can generate the same kind of heat!!!!

    That's a kind of 'double standard', if you like!!!!


  • Options
    #239
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    marcsignal wrote: »
    @ marienbad the Germans are hell bent on rolling out their HD laws throughout the EU in the future, if they had their way, they would already be here.

    As it stands, it's bizarre to think, that I can say something in the Departures lounge in Dublin Airport without any problems, and then get on a 2 hour flight, and repeat the same thing in the Arrivals hall at Munich Airport, and get a spell in the clink. Do you not agree that's a bit nuts?

    on a seperate issue

    as for 'quotes', i often use them, but not always in an ironic context, but rather for emphasis.
    If this causes any confusion I'll use italics instead.

    Hello Marc, no I dont think it is bizarre at all, customs vary from country to country and symbols mean different things and can hold more potency from country to country.

    This country went into a rapture of self-congratulation when God Save The Queen was sung in Croke Park and the Heavens did'nt fall a full 90 years after independance.

    furthermore, something that has often struck me driving around this fair land of ours is the custom of our hotels having a parade of flags, never less than three. Usually made up as follows , The Irish Flag, The EU Stars and usually the US star and Stripes as the third , very occasionally you see the German or French . Never ,ever the Union Jack , now before anyone jumps in and says thats because the US is our major tourist market. Not so, the UK is and always has been our top visitors, and biggest spenders, but that is not mentioned in polite conversation. 2009 Board failte visitors to Ireland were UK 1,600,000/ USA 870,000/Germany 300,000.

    Symbols are powerful things , be it the Union Jack in Ireland or The Swastika in Germany


  • Options
    #240
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    depaly wrote: »
    All very dramatic......

    Who or what are 'Hasbra Shills'???????????

    My take on Hasbra shills:
    Hasbra is Israels own foreign affairs press staff, noted for their warped view on reality and lack of clarity on their own countries crimes. So a Hasbra shill is someone who helps Israels foreign affairs staff without declaring that they have a close relationship with them.

    It is a type of name calling basically, that is hard for mods to interpret.

    You should be careful though about putting it in 'quotes' or 'irony quotes' as it could really offend some poster's then!!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    My take on Hasbra shills:

    That is an odd phrase, I would not take it to mean work directly for the govt.

    I would take it to mean they are working in that general direction, it would include people who engage in any of the many organisations involved in this underhand tactic :

    http://giyus.org/
    http://www.thejidf.org/

    there are 2 examples, there are more. To the best of my knowledge they have in the past targeted boards.ie btw. There was even a report recently that the actual govt was starting a new organised and highly funded programme to achieve this aim too.

    The phrase as I understand it would also include those on the lobby & advocacy side who are not technically a member of those mentioned or affiliated umbrella groups.


Advertisement