Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

nthclare

Mr. Karate wrote: »

So you have no problem with Antifa looking they endorse pedophilia? Because that's how it looked like to the sane world.

The saying "Choose your battles wisely." exists for a reason. Antifa chose wrong.And in the process looked like they endorse pedophiles and thus ruined what little credibility they had.

That shower seen to endorse anything that's creepy or sick.
I know a two living in Ennis of that ANTI-FASCISM ilk.

Mostly wasters, exe addict's, control freaks, creeps, freaks and a bang of incel off them.

The kind of lads who in secondary school were loners, lurking around corners and they were edgy.

Antifa will be gone soon enough, ironically they're fashists and have gone too far.

Bonniedog

Overheal wrote: »

So we are saying the Gemma counter protesters were thugs engaged in thuggery??

If she was holding a legal meeting then no one has any more right to disrupt it than they would to disrupt a meeting of leftie extremists.

biko

Antifa are just in it for the violence.
They have no general strategy nor understanding of the wider concepts.
The ones that are old enough to work is mainly in low-skilled labour or enrolled in a useless university course.

RWCNT

Bonniedog wrote: »

If she was holding a legal meeting then no one has any more right to disrupt it than they would to disrupt a meeting of leftie extremists.

Except they DO have the right, even if you've decided for yourself that they don't.

Overheal

Bonniedog wrote: »

If she was holding a legal meeting then no one has any more right to disrupt it than they would to disrupt a meeting of leftie extremists.

So then they had the same rights as the Antifa who disrupted the meeting of folks allegedly calling for an execution of a politician/former politician, yes? Then nobody deserved to be violently responded toward.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

The Brits wasnt routed in Norway,they pulled out with the French because of Dunkirk,and actually gave Hitler his first defeat in ww2.

They pulled out because they were defeated and they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Norway was a massive screw up. The British were only there to re-route an invasion force toward Narvik, the only ice free port, that was shipping iron ore from Gallivare to Germany.

That prompted the Germans to forestall a British landing.

Op. Catherine was a disaster from beginning to end and another indication of Churchill's very limited military acumen.

Bonniedog

Overheal wrote: »

So then they had the same rights as the Antifa who disrupted the meeting of folks allegedly calling for an execution of a politician/former politician, yes? Then nobody deserved to be violently responded toward.

No one was calling for O'Gorman or Tatchell to be executed :rolleyes:

Overheal

Bonniedog wrote: »

No one was calling for O'Gorman or Tatchell to be executed :rolleyes:

It’s not my digest so I’m going off what posters contribute.

Acosta

Bonniedog wrote: »

Antifa turned up to disrupt a peaceful legal protest. They had no business doing so, no more than anyone would have in doing likewise to a left wing meeting or protest.

These scum have gloried in their forcing meetings to end and intimidating hotels and other venues and educational institutions cancelling speakers who they don't like.

They got a small taste of their own medicine. Big Boy and Girl Pants for the whinging reds.

Jesus. I'm only glad none of your sort are anywhere near power.

And hotels and other venues were never forced to stop meetings. They were informed by others who was booked into their venues and nearly all of them put a stop to it immediately. Some of them said they were lied to as to the purpose of these meetings.

excludedbin

Bonniedog wrote: »

No one was calling for O'Gorman or Tatchell to be executed :rolleyes:

They were just holding a banner and placards with images of nooses for fun, I suppose.

Overheal

excludedbin wrote: »

They were just holding a banner and placards with images of nooses for fun, I suppose.

Right? They didn’t go for handcuffs or iron bars. They went for nooses. Good point. I don’t know why that didn’t click with me earlier when I saw this imagery but I was more interested in how the Antifa fellas were reacted to.

Billy Mays

Barrett has a fondness for calling for the execution of certain people iirc

RWCNT

Overheal wrote: »

Right? They didn’t go for handcuffs or iron bars. They went for nooses. Good point. I don’t know why that didn’t click with me earlier when I saw this imagery but I was more interested in how the Antifa fellas were reacted to.

The noose placards and the "P9" on the other side of them are a reference to the National Party's 9th principle:

The National Party demands a complete reform of our criminal justice system, placing the protection of society from criminality as its imperative value, up to and including restoration of the Death Penalty for particularly heinous crimes.

That's what I saw the whole demonstration as anyway - present a narrative that there's a great threat to the children of Ireland, and that the NP is the solution to that threat, so hop on board.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

They pulled out because they were defeated and they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Norway was a massive screw up. The British were only there to re-route an invasion force toward Narvik, the only ice free port, that was shipping iron ore from Gallivare to Germany.

That prompted the Germans to forestall a British landing.

Op. Catherine was a disaster from beginning to end and another indication of Churchill's very limited military acumen.

Norway was a massive screwup due to the British planning and execution.. confusion and bickering between the navy and the army. Mixed up lines of communication and confusion over objectives.

They also hadn't counted on the speed of German forces moving through the country with Paratroopers, nor the ability of German forces to leapfrog their ground support aircraft.

The British were overconfident and arrogant believing in their own legend. They were shown just how badly equipped and trained they truly were for a modern war (their amphibious landings were a mess). They also mucked up relations with Norway over it all.

As for Churchill, his strategy was sound but he was still limited by divisions within the government/military. Movies like to suggest that everyone stood in line to serve their country but in the beginning of the Churchill leadership, he faced quite a bit of opposition.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Norway was a massive screwup due to the British planning and execution.. confusion and bickering between the navy and the army. Mixed up lines of communication and confusion over objectives.

They also hadn't counted on the speed of German forces moving through the country with Paratroopers, nor the ability of German forces to leapfrog their ground support aircraft.

The British were overconfident and arrogant believing in their own legend. They were shown just how badly equipped and trained they truly were for a modern war (their amphibious landings were a mess). They also mucked up relations with Norway over it all.

As for Churchill, his strategy was sound but he was still limited by divisions within the government/military. Movies like to suggest that everyone stood in line to serve their country but in the beginning of the Churchill leadership, he faced quite a bit of opposition.

Churchill's strategy was awful. Once in Norway, British troops were to head to Narvik and occupy the port and it was then further hoped that the Norwegians wouldn't actually turn against a British invasion force and just get on board against the Germans. Although they had neither the desire to be at war with either country.

Catherine was one of the most flimsiest plans in the whole war and coupled with Wilfred was a disaster waiting to happen.

There were better minds that were arguing against the First Lord of the Admiralty and a lot of them hadn't forgotten Churchill's previous farce in the Dardanelles in WWI. But he wouldn't listen to them.

All he achieved in the end was plunging Norway into a German occupation for five years.

Bonniedog

The noose I think was in reference to paedophiles generically, rather than any specific person.

Reds cannot claim to be morally opposed to killing anyone, usually innocents, so that was hardly their objection :-)

excludedbin

Oh come off it! They couldn't have been any more obvious unless they had "Hang Roderic O'Gorman" on the banner. They're the same crowd that've been pushing the idea that he's a paedophile because he was photographed standing next to Tatchell. Are we just supposed not to draw the obvious logical link between the two?

And if it was general, why did they only decide to protest outside the Dáil in the immediate aftermath of the controversy? Sad to see homophobic scumbaggery like that being defended but I'm not surprised any more.

Mr. Karate

excludedbin wrote: »

Oh come off it! They couldn't have been any more obvious unless they had "Hang Roderic O'Gorman" on the banner. They're the same crowd that've been pushing the idea that he's a paedophile because he was photographed standing next to Tatchell. Are we just supposed not to draw the obvious logical link between the two?

And if it was general, why did they only decide to protest outside the Dáil in the immediate aftermath of the controversy? Sad to see homophobic scumbaggery like that being defended but I'm not surprised any more.

Maybe O'Gorman should have condemned pedophilia instead of hiding behind being Gay.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

So the people who counter protested Gemma O’Doherty - they would have deserved violent retribution as well? They also made use of music and amplifiers.

Perhaps instead we should recognize that the right to protest applies to everyone and it is not a freedom from being inoculated from counter protest or criticism.

When you say that the right to protest applies to everyone you have to allow people the opportunity to get their point across.

Antifa, or the persons rightly or wrongly associated with them employ a policy of "by any means necessary", which generally means getting in the faces of people they disagree with, which often leads to "heated" situations.
The group playing music over the protest on Saturday were small, they could not engage the crowd when they became violent in response to their actions, however this is often not the case, Antifa regularly involve themselves in violence themselves. Anyone engaging in violence should be subject to the full force of the law.

The problem Antifa and their associates have is the notion of "by any means necessary", often those means are peaceful, however when you enter the fray of a protest anything can and often does happen and Antifa are not innocent of causing their share of mayhem.

The only other group that springs to mind with regard to the "by any means necessary" type mantra employed by Antifa is Scientology with their "fair game" system that they employ against people who disagree with them.

When you decide to put yourself in harms way against people you openly acknowledge are unreasonable, you have to accept that violence is a likely outcome. I don't want to see idiots on either end of the political spectrum kicking lumps out of each other on the streets, society loses when far right or far left factions start clashing. Extremist views are outdated on both ends of the spectrum, yet we still have to deal with this type of nonsense in 2020.

Acosta

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Maybe O'Gorman should have condemned pedophilia instead of hiding behind being Gay.

He did

excludedbin

Why should he have to condemn it when he hasn't engaged in it? Why should he have to satisfy the demands of a violent mob? They're the ones that invented this story that he's a paedophile, they should establish that he is, first. But since ye're back to lying about it, https://www.thejournal.ie/roderic-ogorman-reject-peter-thatchell-5142524-Jul2020/

“I met Peter Tatchell once and took a photo. That was the only time I have met him,” the minister said.

“I knew of him as someone who stood up for LGBT people in countries where their rights were threatened. I was surprised to read some quotes from the 90s, which I had not read before.

“Any of those views would be completely abhorrent to me. I’m glad to see he’s clarified and explained that what is being alleged isn’t his view.”

Annasopra

Bonniedog wrote: »

Antifa turned up to disrupt a peaceful legal protest. They had no business doing so, no more than anyone would have in doing likewise to a left wing meeting or protest.

These scum have gloried in their forcing meetings to end and intimidating hotels and other venues and educational institutions cancelling speakers who they don't like.

They got a small taste of their own medicine. Big Boy and Girl Pants for the whinging reds.

Cool. So you support them being assaulted too.

nullzero

Joeytheparrot, I'm guessing you deleted your post when you realised what you said about my post had no basis in fact, didn't stop Protonmike from thanking it however. I was wondering why I couldn't reply to it.

Mr. Karate

Acosta wrote: »

He did

No he didn't. He cried like a baby and claimed he was being attacked for being gay. He's both a liar and a coward.

excludedbin

Mr. Karate wrote: »

No he didn't. He cried like a baby and claimed he was being attacked for being gay. He's both a liar and a coward.

excludedbin wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/roderic-ogorman-reject-peter-thatchell-5142524-Jul2020/

“I met Peter Tatchell once and took a photo. That was the only time I have met him,” the minister said.

“I knew of him as someone who stood up for LGBT people in countries where their rights were threatened. I was surprised to read some quotes from the 90s, which I had not read before.

“Any of those views would be completely abhorrent to me. I’m glad to see he’s clarified and explained that what is being alleged isn’t his view.”

Stop lying through your teeth. He was attacked because he's gay. The only liars here are yourself and the others peddling this load of bunkum that he didn't condemn it. And the only cowards are you lot who can't even admit you're attacking him because he's gay, even when the facts are right there in front of you.

Bonniedog

He was not attacked for being gay. The second speaker on Saturday is gay.

He was attacked for his association with a long time defender of the abuse of children. Which is what adult men having sex with boys is.

O'Gorman has also been criticised for his plans to allow under 16s to be surgically "treated" for gender dysphoria. Against the view of several medical people who work with such children, and on recommendation of a committee with transgender activists on it.

Is he supposed to be immune from criticism because he is gay?

Acosta

Bonniedog wrote: »

He was not attacked for being gay. The second speaker on Saturday is gay.

The "I am a gay man" guy? The guy that actively campaigned against marriage equality for himself and others is probably not the best example of a gay man being against O'Gorman on this matter.

excludedbin

Bonniedog wrote: »

He was not attacked for being gay. The second speaker on Saturday is gay.

Ah, the old "I can't be homophobic, my best friend is gay" defence.

He was attacked for his association

His "association" being "standing next to in a photograph".

with a long time defender of the abuse of children. Which is what adult men having sex with boys is.

I see, so standing next to someone means you agree with what they say. Hope you've never stood anywhere in the vicinity of any paedophiles or that means you're one too!

O'Gorman has also been criticised

Almost entirely by the same far right scumbags out calling for his hanging.

for his plans to allow under 16s to be surgically "treated" for gender dysphoria. Against the view of several medical people

But not against the view of the wider medical community.

who work with such children, and on recommendation of a committee with transgender activists on it.

The only transgender activists who matter, of course. Also "my best friend is transgender" defence.

Is he supposed to be immune from criticism because he is gay?

Should people be allowed threaten him with hanging because you don't like him or disagree with him?

Bonniedog

Acosta wrote: »

The "I am a gay man" guy? The guy that actively campaigned against marriage equality for himself and others is probably not the best example of a gay man being against O'Gorman on this matter.

What the fk would you know about him?

He doesn't fit into your little baby box so he's not "really gay." :rolleyes:

Same as Murray and many others who don't believe in leftie cr@p.

So i am assuming that you do think that if someone is gay they are immune from criticism, once they are in the world of infantile leftism.

Overheal

Bonniedog wrote: »

What the fk would you know about him?

He doesn't fit into your little baby box so he's not "really gay." :rolleyes:

Same as Murray and many others who don't believe in leftie cr@p.

So i am assuming that you do think that if someone is gay they are immune from criticism, once they are in the world of infantile leftism.

Huh?

excludedbin wrote:

I see, so standing next to someone means you agree with what they say.

Duh.