Gemma O'Doherty and her unicorns

Battery Power

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I won't be clicking any Liberal links.


Is that a real person? You know how Leo frequently makes up names for journalists and commenters on his little site (if he's not busy buying large numbers of followers from the phone farms of India and Bangladesh ironically).

In between that and 'phoning people- pretending to be a certified Microsoft technician?

TheRepentent

Stephen15 wrote: »

I don't always agree with The Liberal.ie but this article is 100% the truth.
https://theliberal.ie/opinion-the-same-people-who-want-to-censor-gemma-odoherty-want-lisa-smith-back-in-ireland/

The liberal lol

Stephen please change your sources.

As it stands you'd swallow a brick.

Stephen15

TheRepentent wrote: »

The liberal lol

Stephen please change your sources.

As it stands you'd swallow a brick.

What I clearly stated I don't agree with everything they post but I agree this time. You say I'd swallow a brick but you probably would too if it had Guardian, RTE, Journal.ie or Irish Times written on it unlike you I am not bias about by new sources I will agree with what I agree with and disagree with what I disagree with regardless of news sources.

Would you rather Lisa Smith came home or Gemma was allowed to continue with her Youtube channel.

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

.

Would you rather Lisa Smith came home or Gemma was allowed to continue with her Youtube channel.

I'll take Lisa thanks - though why would it be an either /or choice?

recedite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll take Lisa thanks - though why would it be an either /or choice?

You just proved that The Liberal.ie article is 100% correct

AndrewJRenko

recedite wrote: »

You just proved that The Liberal.ie article is 100% correct

Fair play to Leo Gerard so for the article - which conclusion did they come to about Gemma?

• Obnoxious woman-hating racist that wants to take Ireland back to the 1950s
• Scheming manipulative shrew exploiting people who lack the smarts to see through her nonsense for financial gain

Stephen15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fair play to Leo Gerard so for the article - which conclusion did they come to about Gemma?

• Obnoxious woman-hating racist that wants to take Ireland back to the 1950s
• Scheming manipulative shrew exploiting people who lack the smarts to see through her nonsense for financial gain

But your the one who wants returning ISIS jihadis to come to Ireland

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

But your the one who wants returning ISIS jihadis to come to Ireland

So many factual errors in one short sentence;

1. Lisa Smith is one person, not several persons
2. There is no evidence that Lisa Smith is or was an ISIS jihadi
3. Any Irish citizen can enter Ireland at any time, regardless of what crime they may or may not have committed
4. I didn't say that I wanted Lisa Smith to return to Ireland. I said that if given the slightly nonsensical choice between Lisa and Gemma, I'm with Lisa

If Lisa Smith has committed any crime, then she should be prosecuted and pay the price accordingly. Regardless of whether she did or didn't commit a crime, she, like every other Irish citizen, is entitled to enter Ireland. She's also the mother of a two year old child, who is also an Irish citizen.

But I'm still not getting the rationale for choosing one or other - what's the connection?

batgoat

Stephen15 wrote: »

But your the one who wants returning ISIS jihadis to come to Ireland

I would actually favour letting her in as she remains an Irish citizens. Pursue prosecutions in relation to crimes and work on deradicalising her. Denmark have had success doing so.

Anyway, not remotely comparable to Gemma being banned from YouTube...

recedite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no evidence that Lisa Smith is or was an ISIS jihadi

This is a joke, right?

AndrewJRenko

recedite wrote: »

This is a joke, right?

Do you have some evidence to share with the class?

recedite

The word jihad is nuanced, it does not just mean a soldier (even though she is a trained soldier). Anyone who pledged allegiance to that cause was involved in the jihad.

She went a long way, and went to a lot of trouble, so that she could sign up for the Islamic State. She stuck it out to the bitter end, even after they suffered military defeats and many others had quit.
Even if she never touched a weapon and had some sort of back office job, she is still a jihadi.
As it happens, some people have said she was actually involved in weapons training there, but the jury is still out on that.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

The word jihad is nuanced, it does not just mean a soldier (even though she is a trained soldier). Anyone who pledged allegiance to that cause was involved in the jihad.

She went a long way, and went to a lot of trouble, so that she could sign up for the Islamic State. She stuck it out to the bitter end, even after they suffered military defeats and many others had quit.
Even if she never touched a weapon and had some sort of back office job, she is still a jihadi.
As it happens, some people have said she was actually involved in weapons training there, but the jury is still out on that.

Asked a question earlier in the thread and you haven't addressed it. Do you view non white Irish people as Irish or are you obsessed with their bloodline?

AndrewJRenko

recedite wrote: »

The word jihad is nuanced, it does not just mean a soldier (even though she is a trained soldier). Anyone who pledged allegiance to that cause was involved in the jihad.

She went a long way, and went to a lot of trouble, so that she could sign up for the Islamic State. She stuck it out to the bitter end, even after they suffered military defeats and many others had quit.
Even if she never touched a weapon and had some sort of back office job, she is still a jihadi.
As it happens, some people have said she was actually involved in weapons training there, but the jury is still out on that.

You might have missed my question above. I asked if you have any evidence to share - meaning evidence of a crime.

King Mob

Are we just listing points that red had run away from and left unaddressed?
Cause there's a couple more still lingering from the whole evil bread deal.

Infernal Racket

King Mob wrote: »

Are we just listing points that red had run away from and left unaddressed?
Cause there's a couple more still lingering from the whole evil bread deal.

Oh no, not that again...

Stephen15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So many factual errors in one short sentence;

1. Lisa Smith is one person, not several persons
2. There is no evidence that Lisa Smith is or was an ISIS jihadi
3. Any Irish citizen can enter Ireland at any time, regardless of what crime they may or may not have committed
4. I didn't say that I wanted Lisa Smith to return to Ireland. I said that if given the slightly nonsensical choice between Lisa and Gemma, I'm with Lisa

If Lisa Smith has committed any crime, then she should be prosecuted and pay the price accordingly. Regardless of whether she did or didn't commit a crime, she, like every other Irish citizen, is entitled to enter Ireland. She's also the mother of a two year old child, who is also an Irish citizen.

But I'm still not getting the rationale for choosing one or other - what's the connection?

Whather she is an Irish citizen or not is not the point the fact is the government wants to facilitate her to return here. We may not be in a position to refuse her the right to return but we have no obligation to facilitate and help her to return to Ireland which is a complete waste of taxpayers money and poses a threat to our national security.

If we didn't attempt to help her to return here she would probably not be able to return to Ireland. [snip]

AndrewJRenko

Stephen15 wrote: »

Whather she is an Irish citizen or not is not the point the fact is the government wants to facilitate her to return here. We may not be in a position to refuse her the right to return but we have no obligation to facilitate and help her to return to Ireland which is a complete waste of taxpayers money and poses a threat to our national security.

Where exactly did the Irish government state that they want to help her to return home?

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

Asked a question earlier in the thread and you haven't addressed it. Do you view non white Irish people as Irish or are you obsessed with their bloodline?

Why do people keep asking these questions? I was asked earlier if I wanted a colour charted immigration regime.
Is this because I proved earlier that we don't all have the exact same DNA? (as one poster here wrongly asserted)
Is it because I said those with West African genetics are better sprinters than the native Irish?
You won't admit there are racial differences, but when the "new Irish" are starting to win sprint medals you are fawning over them as if it was a completely unforeseen miracle.


I hope that after a few generations such people will still be proud of their African heritage, just as Irish Americans do not forget their Irish heritage.
Yes they are Irish, but more than that they are Nigerian Irish.


I'm not afraid to say that most Nigerians have scammed their way into this country, and should never have been let in. But the next generation are full Irish citizens and should be fully respected as such.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might have missed my question above. I asked if you have any evidence to share - meaning evidence of a crime.

I see what you did there - changed the goalposts.

You originally claimed there was no evidence that she was an ISIS jihadi.
She is 100% an IS jihadi. Burned her native passport when she formally swore allegiance to the Islamic State, as they all did.


Is it a crime to fight for IS? I don't think so. Not if you're a citizen of IS. Its your duty to contribute. The men fought, the women were not allowed at the front line. They helped in other ways.

King Mob wrote: »

Are we just listing points that red had run away from and left unaddressed?
Cause there's a couple more still lingering from the whole evil bread deal.

Nope. No question is left unanswered by me.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Nope. No question is left unanswered by me.

Bit of a fib there red.

Stop moaning ffs

Thread in which posters defend racist lunatic woman and her minions being blocked from YouTube and demanding her return and which they also castigate stupid woman for running away to join Islamist lunatics and blocking her return

Gas.

recedite

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did the Irish government state that they want to help her to return home?

The Government is engaging with “international actors” to help bring Dundalk woman Lisa Smith and her two-year-old daughter back to Ireland, Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has confirmed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-engaging-with-international-actors-to-help-bring-lisa-smith-home-says-flanagan-1.3961378


Mind you, the initial govt. enthusiasm seems to have waned a bit recently.
The Americans may have had a word with them. It seems the yanks are investigating her.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Bit of a fib there red.

If you're going to make allegations, back them up.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

If you're going to make allegations, back them up.

I posted this in which I make several points to you, and reiterated several you had previously ignored.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110651288&postcount=741

This was your response:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110654251&postcount=744

You never addressed any of those points because you can't.
They showed the problems in your position and highlighted either your blatant dishonesty or startling lack of understanding, or both.
You directly lied about things in your own sources.

You are now lying about what can be plainly seen by everyone who can read this thread.
You are operating on a very trumpian level of post-truth.

Also, a more recent example:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110805448&postcount=1162
Never got a response.

recedite

As I said there, I don't respond to insults, but I answer questions.
Your posts are impolite and confused. Nobody knows what you are on about.
If you want to put this famous question of yours now in a clear form, I will answer it.

OleRodrigo

It seems one of the tactics of ' debate' among certain posters in this forum is to shower an intelligent, calm commentator with deflecting questions which prevent the subject being explored in a thorough manner at any sort of depth. Consequently, these posters are saved from exposing their shallow and meaningless point of view while allowing them to maintain a veneer of some sort of righteousness.
It's essentially the same mechanism as calling someone a racist. It stops the opponent in his tracks forcing him to explain why he isn't a racist while implicitly indicating the accuser is the virtuous party, because if you call someone a racist it means you can't be one yourself, obviously. It's a neat trick. Despite the fact the ' racist ' is actually meaningless term with no real definition. Despite the fact that by the definition of these posters, there are countries such as India, Russia, Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, The UAE ( bloody hell...the UAE) Japan, Korea, Any number of Sub Saharan tribal countries...that have a real case to answer to. But let's not go there...it's only Westerners that can be ' racist ' in this lefty a-la carte wokeness. Have look to see how many refugees Japan has let in this year. Or Saudi Arabia...who are best placed to assist with Middle East refugees.

[snip - take the personal begrudgery about other forums elsewhere]

Actually, it's helped me see more clearly that this militant brand of leftiness has more to do with mental deficiency, or poor mental health...rather than being a coherent way of thinking. So thanks for that . One of the reasons I would support Gemma O'Doherty. The other is a belief in real free speech and the meritocracy of ideas.

Regarding Google - I would recommend you have look for an interview on the Dave Rubin show ( on YT ) with the Engineer that was fired for voicing an opinion that went against the internal wokeness culture in Google. Fascinating and creepy as hell. Actually, here is the link:

https://youtu.be/6NOSD0XK0r8

AndrewJRenko

recedite wrote: »

You originally claimed there was no evidence that she was an ISIS jihadi.
She is 100% an IS jihadi. Burned her native passport when she formally swore allegiance to the Islamic State, as they all did.


Is it a crime to fight for IS? I don't think so. Not if you're a citizen of IS. Its your duty to contribute. The men fought, the women were not allowed at the front line. They helped in other ways.

What's your source for this claim about burning her passport?

Is everyone who burns their passport automatically a member of IS? You saying '100% for sure' isn't really great evidence.

And even if she was a member of IS, that in itself is not a crime afaik, as they are not a proscribed organisation in Ireland.

So if she committed no crime, what would be the basis for stopping her returning to Ireland?

OleRodrigo wrote: »

It seems one of the tactics of ' debate' among certain posters in this forum is to shower an intelligent, calm commentator with deflecting questions which prevent the subject being explored in a thorough manner at any sort of depth. Consequently, these posters are saved from exposing their shallow and meaningless point of view while allowing them to maintain a veneer of some sort of righteousness.

Fairly classic Gemmaroid tactics there, playing the victim when challenged. No-one is being prevented from exploring any subject thoroughly. Explore away, to your hearts content. If you're finding it hard to answer questions, maybe that's because those questions are exposing the hypocrisy and racism at the heart of Gemma's movement - shouting about 'free speech' while furiously shutting down anyone that challenges their approach.

So please, explore away.

recedite wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-engaging-with-international-actors-to-help-bring-lisa-smith-home-says-flanagan-1.3961378

Did you actually read the article that you linked to?

“It’s a real challenge for Irish officials or people acting on behalf of the Irish state to enter one of the most challenging areas of conflict in the world.”

The Minister said Ireland is “engaging with international actors in order to offer assistance” but declined to give more detail.

The Government previously rejected a plan from the Defence Forces to bring her home from Syria two months ago through co-operation with foreign intelligence agencies.

It sounds like the Government are providing standard consular services. There's certainly no suggestion of sending out the Government jet and the red carpet.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

As I said there, I don't respond to insults, but I answer questions.
Your posts are impolite and confused. Nobody knows what you are on about.
If you want to put this famous question of yours now in a clear form, I will answer it.

But you said that you answered all questions and points...
You asked me to point to examples of some you didnt address. So there you go.

You ignored those and the ones in the post above.
You are now just using "politeness" and in abliity to understand as an excuse to ignore questions and points you can't address.

If my posts are out of line, or some how worse than the racist tripe you've been liking in this thread report them. If a question is unclear, ask for clarification.
Ignoring points isnt helping your position.

The questions I asked are very clear and direct.
Why did you claim that Kelloggs didnt deny something that your sources clearly quote them as denying.

Why did you claim that clearly non halal practices were halal?

King Mob

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The other is a belief in real free speech and the meritocracy of ideas.

And to be clear, this includes ideas such as chemtrails fake shootings and the other such conspiracy theories share on this thread by Gemma's defenders?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Why did you claim that Kelloggs didnt deny something that your sources clearly quote them as denying.

As I recall, I said to you that Kelloggs were using "marketing speak" to cover their retreat and the U-turn.

'They’re inherently halal, so we chose not to renew our certification in 2016 as part of a regular review of all certifications for our foods,' a spokesman said.
'This was a commercial decision, not the result of any public pressure or backlash.'
However Halal Certification Authority president Mohamed Elmouelhy said a public campaign against halal certification may have made companies think twice.
'Yes, of course. There was a campaign,' he told Daily Mail Australia.
Mr Elmouelhy has declined the reveal the details of his clients or where his halal fees went.

The guy who was previously getting the fees is obviously pi$$ed off about it and blamed the campaign.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4702446/Kellogg-s-Sanitarium-shun-halal-certification-fees.html

So that's it. Are you going to continue to argue over it?