Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

1…789101113»

Comments

  • #362
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    metrovelvet wrote:
    What exactly is the topic? Seriously, there are so many issues underneath this cartoon I think people can be forgiven for webbing it a bit.

    The topic is within the context of the Media.
    If you want to discuss political stuff there is a thread in politics.
    If you just want general banter there is a thread in After Hours.
    If you want to discuss the implications and human nature of the whole thing there is a thread in humanties.
    If you want to discuss the religous aspect of it you can try the Islam forum*

    * Discussion of the cartoon itself is out of bounds there as the thread just collapsed into whining and name calling. If you have any religous questions though you are more then welcome to ask there.

    I suspect this thread is near locking so if you want to continue talking on it there are other avenues for it.


  • #363
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    I didnt know you were a mod on News/Media too.

    So then if we're not talking about the cartoon ON THIS THREAD [my question wasnt about the forum] what is the topic?

    Seriously, mod keeps saying stay on topic but what is it? I thought it was the cartoon.


  • #364
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    metrovelvet wrote:
    I didnt know you were a mod on News/Media too.

    No I am not a mod here. I am just giving you a heads up.
    my question wasnt about the forum] what is the topic?

    Regardless of the topic it should be discussed in relation to media/news on this forum. I am sure Flogan is sick saying it and continuing to discuss this argument is just going to get the thread locked.

    If you need to reply to this please do so via pm. thanks.


  • #365
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    :)
    flogen wrote:
    Quadri's post has been moved also

    My compliments.


  • #366
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Hobbes wrote:
    No I am not a mod here. I am just giving you a heads up.

    Very generous indeed.;)


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    secret_squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭secret_squirrel


    Freddie59 wrote:
    How dare you come on a free-discussion website and make that claim. That is arrant nonsense.

    Really considering it is 'arrant nonsense' why dont you refute it? Or reply to flogen's statement in the post straight after yours?

    You seem to want to remain purposely ignorant of the climate under which this Board, and indeed any media organisation operates in which is one in which Freedom of Speech is limited

    If you really cant grasp that simple fact its pointless arguing with you since you are arguing out of ignorance instead of by rational debate.

    I would also suggest that anyone who refuses to enlighten themselves when they have the tools readily available (a relatively free unbaised media) is in no way better than those currently storming embassies and burning buildings.

    But hey maybe deliberate ignorance is the one true religion? :rolleyes:

    Whats the big deal in a large group requesting limits to freedom of speech pertinent to them and their beliefs?


  • #368
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    secret_squirrel wrote:
    Freedom of Speech is limited

    If you really cant grasp that simple fact its pointless arguing with you since you are arguing out of ignorance instead of by rational debate.

    I would also suggest that anyone who refuses to enlighten themselves when they have the tools readily available (a relatively free unbaised media) is in no way better than those currently storming embassies and burning buildings.

    But hey maybe deliberate ignorance is the one true religion? :rolleyes:

    Whats the big deal in a large group requesting limits to freedom of speech pertinent to them and their beliefs?
    [/SIZE]

    Ah yes - of course you are right - it is limited......by hugely varying degrees.

    For example, there are countries (like Ireland) where you will be rebuked for saying certain things (and maybe a week's ban on boards like this). But hey - you can live with it. Restrictions on what you say are probably in the low single-digit percentages.

    Then there are other countries (who I'm sure I don't need to name because they are infamous for their intolerance) where your head can be lobbed off for comments which would normally be classed as inane or inoffensive in civilised countries like Ireland.

    Then there are countries who try to LIMIT the freedom of speech and expression of OTHER countries, like in this link:

    http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/7423255?view=Eircomnet

    Or you could try here:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/


  • #369
    secret_squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭secret_squirrel


    Freddie59 wrote:
    Then there are countries who try to LIMIT the freedom of speech and expression of OTHER countries, like in this link:
    freddie's link wrote:
    [FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif] Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and French President Jacques Chirac both said on Friday that it was a mistake to publish the cartoons.
    [/FONT]

    And two people as diverse as Chirac and Clinton agree with them, dont you think they might have a point?


  • #370
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    secret_squirrel wrote:
    And two people as diverse as Chirac and Clinton agree with them, dont you think they might have a point?

    Amazing to see that you're relying on the word of a serial adulterer to back your argument up......doesn't Islam frown on adultery (i.e. it's a capital offence....for a woman)?:rolleyes:

    I see there's no comment on the 'religion Of Peace' Link.........:eek:

    Of course there was another 'peaceful' demo in London today. 'You don't want to provoke 1.2 billion people' was one comment. That chap shouldn't forget that another 4.8 billion occupy this planet also.;)

    Look - the cartoons were offensive to some....big deal. The Catholic church has been pilloried for years (Jesus saves but he's not on PAYE - there......a joke about another religion.....but you won't see Catholics - me included - trying to bully others over the remark).

    Get a life. The cartoons were offensive to some. They were funny to others. They were about a man, not God. What's the big deal?


  • #371
    secret_squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭secret_squirrel


    Freddie59 wrote:
    Amazing to see that you're relying on the word of a serial adulterer to back your argument up.

    Like thats relevant?
    Get a life.
    I have one - thanks for asking.
    The cartoons were offensive to some. They were funny to others.

    My point is a simple one - there are far more trivial causes of percieved offense that are censored (imo), why shouldnt a reasoned request for censorship in this case be considered?

    Whether or not there are a few nutters going bonkers over it is irrelevant and should have no bearing on the merits of the request.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Freddie59 wrote:
    Amazing to see that you're relying on the word of a serial adulterer to back your argument up......doesn't Islam frown on adultery (i.e. it's a capital offence....for a woman)?:rolleyes: ?

    Yes indeed Freddie and did you know that if you wear perfume in the presence of a man other than your husband that too is adultery?

    They never answer their questions about their religion. Never. Why? Because they dont want you to know. Its OK to lie to the infidel.
    Freddie59 wrote:
    Of course there was another 'peaceful' demo in London today. 'You don't want to provoke 1.2 billion people' was one comment. That chap shouldn't forget that another 4.8 billion occupy this planet also.;)

    And Nigeria and LIbya. THey are burnign down Catholic Churches now. Idiots, dont they know Danes are protestants?:rolleyes:

    This is not a religion of peace. What nonsense. Its one of fear. AFter this past month I have no respect for the religion. I see it for what it is, a violent oppressive regime that has everyone scared ****less.

    You just wait until they have infiltrated the guards and none of you will be able to go to the pubs on friday night for a drink.

    Well theyve been protesting out in front of the UN. I think I'll be spending today packing my weekend getaway bag for when they take over the streets. Thanks to our retarded president the ports will now be run by the UAE!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Hopefully the dumb democrats can do something about this one of these days when they get their **** together.

    Welcome to World War 3.


  • #373
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    metrovelvet wrote:
    Yes indeed Freddie and did you know that if you wear perfume in the presence of a man other than your husband that too is adultery?

    That is absolutely incredible!
    metrovelvet wrote:
    They never answer their questions about their religion. Never. Why? Because they dont want you to know. Its OK to lie to the infidel.

    It appears so. And to use the infidels very freedoms (expression, specch, etc) to undermine them.
    metrovelvet wrote:
    And Nigeria and LIbya. THey are burnign down Catholic Churches now. Idiots, dont they know Danes are protestants?:rolleyes:

    Doesn't that say it all.........

    This is not a religion of peace. What nonsense. Its one of fear. AFter this past month I have no respect for the religion. I see it for what it is, a violent oppressive regime that has everyone scared ****less.
    metrovelvet wrote:
    You just wait until they have infiltrated the guards and none of you will be able to go to the pubs on friday night for a drink.

    Yes - I believe the entry rules have been altered to accommodate 'ethnic minorities'.
    metrovelvet wrote:
    Well theyve been protesting out in front of the UN. I think I'll be spending today packing my weekend getaway bag for when they take over the streets. Thanks to our retarded president the ports will now be run by the UAE!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Hopefully the dumb democrats can do something about this one of these days when they get their **** together.

    What in God's name? Is that true? If so it's only a matter of time before a device is smuggled in. And I don't think the USA will tolerate another attack on the scale of 9/11 (or greater). They'll launch first and ask questions later. And that's what the terrrorists are tryng to provoke. Global conflict and then step into the vacuum. Very worrying.:(


  • #374
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    secret_squirrel wrote:
    Like thats relevant?

    Extremely......

    secret_squirrel wrote:
    Whether or not there are a few nutters going bonkers over it is irrelevant and should have no bearing on the merits of the request.

    So you consider these the actions of a 'few nutters' and not a co-ordinated plan?:rolleyes:


  • #375
    secret_squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭secret_squirrel


    quote wrote:
    Extremely......

    How so?
    So you consider these the actions of a 'few nutters' and not a co-ordinated plan?

    Are most of the violent demo's planned?? Probably.

    Are they part of a plot to overthrown the West - in the minds of a few deluded fanantics - quite possibly.

    Are the followers of Islam as whole looking to overthrow the West? I think not. :rolleyes:

    Dont you think its incumbent on posters like you and metrovelvet to actually use the relative freedom of our media to educate yourselves, rather than spouting some of the ignorant bigoted trash and generalisations you have come out with on this thread?

    You do realise dont you that your ignorance is of the same kind that causes the fanatics to burn churches and embassies??

    You have far less excuse too. Presumably you have had the benefits of a superior education in a country where there are greater media and societal freedoms and you spout trash like this?

    You should be ashamed of yourselves.


  • #376
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    secret_squirrel wrote:
    .

    Are the followers of Islam as whole looking to overthrow the West? I think not. :rolleyes:.

    Um yes. I think you're getting it now.
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    .
    Dont you think its incumbent on posters like you and metrovelvet to actually use the relative freedom of our media to educate yourselves, rather than spouting some of the ignorant bigoted trash and generalisations you have come out with on this thread?:

    Those are my opinions. You dont have to like it, but be nice.
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    .
    You do realise dont you that your ignorance is of the same kind that causes the fanatics to burn churches and embassies???:

    Wrong again. Its their ignorance, violence. matches and some flammable substance. Mix in with anger, intolerance, self riteousness and thats the cause.
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    .
    You have far less excuse too. Presumably you have had the benefits of a superior education in a country where there are greater media and societal freedoms and you spout trash like this?

    Whats your excuse for the garbage you spout. Oh right, I get it, brainwashing.
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    .
    You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    You should stop with the tsk tsking. Im not a vandal, a murderer nor am I, unlike you, endorsing such behavior.

    Apparantly Kaddhafi is saying Europe migh one day subordinate to Europe.
    http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?catid=138&newsid=82606&ch=0


  • #377
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    secret_squirrel wrote:
    My point is a simple one - there are far more trivial causes of percieved offense that are censored (imo), why shouldnt a reasoned request for censorship in this case be considered?
    Fine, let's hear you censorship plan.
    Firstly which far more trivial causes are censored (in Denmark)?

    Secondly, What criteria are you proposing that would cause a cartoon to be censored? I really think you should have a go at a phrase that everyone can understand that sums up the criteria for what should and should not be published, and following that .. who gets to decide what opinions cause offense and what should be censored (based on your censorship criteria)?


  • #378
    secret_squirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭secret_squirrel


    pH wrote:
    Fine, let's hear you censorship plan.

    Irrelevant.
    Im     neither planning any censorship or necessarily endorsing it. Im merely advocating that Muslims might actually have a valid point in requesting it. And since both Clinton and Chirac among others have stated the pictures should not have been published is that not censorship? Should we not consider issue disapassionately. Does not the emotive subject and over the top reaction of a minority (on both sides tbh) require such a disapassionate response?

    Its called reasoned debate.

    Or is the current climate of fear, ignorance and Xenophobia on both sides exactly what you want?
    Firstly which far more trivial causes are censored (in Denmark)?

    Re-read my posts - Im talking about the West in general. And to my mind Holocaust denial is equally trivial, abortion directions in Ireland is very trivial etc etc etc.


  • #379
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Im neither planning any censorship or necessarily endorsing it. Im merely advocating that Muslims might actually have a valid point in requesting it.
    I'm sure that statement makes sense to you but it doesn't to me.

    Let's rephrase the question to one you seem happier with:

    How do we tell if muslim's actually have a valid point?

    Once you answer that proceed to the more general case :

    Sir - I find the following opinion/humour in your publication offensive and would ask that you desist from publishing the same.

    How do we decide if someone makeing this request has a valid point, and once again I ask who makes the decision as to what constitutes a valid point?

    All we seem to have at the moment is that if enough people get together and perform violence or make barely concealed threats ('You don't want 1.2 billion muslims angry at you') then you can get your way.

    I think that the cartoons should have been published, and I think that the Irish media has done the population a huge disservice by not printing *any* of the cartoons. I think that the issue has been clouded by the whole bomb-turban image, and the Irish media should have reprinted the 'non-offensive images of mohammed' at least.


  • #380
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    pH wrote:
    How do we decide if someone makeing this request has a valid point, and once again I ask who makes the decision as to what constitutes a valid point?

    Society does. Of course the minority tend to get ignored.

    All we seem to have at the moment is that if enough people get together and perform violence or make barely concealed threats ('You don't want 1.2 billion muslims angry at you') then you can get your way.

    Where did you pick that up from? If anything the sheer vast majority were not rioting, granted a lot were upset but that is understandable if you even bothered to read up the on the religon.

    I think that the Irish media has done the population a huge disservice by not printing *any* of the cartoons.

    You mean you haven't been able to see the cartoons yet? If they knew they were offensive why bother? Your argument has no merit, you could just as easy apply it to Child pornography, Abotion information or Abu Garib pictures (which incidently were not all shown in Ireland either).


  • #381
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Hobbes wrote:
    You mean you haven't been able to see the cartoons yet? If they knew they were offensive why bother?
    Are you now saying that *all* the cartoons are offensive, and that any image of mohammed is indeed offensive and may not be printed?


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    secret_squirrel wrote:
    How so?.
    Emmm.....Bill Clinton is a self-confessed serial adulterer - you are holding him up as some kind of role model in order to underpin your argument.....which is in support of a religion which not only frowns upon, but which may kill you because of, adultery.:rolleyes:
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    Are most of the violent demo's planned?? Probably.

    Let's see - using a Western freedom (to protest freely) to protest against another Western institution - freedom of speech. Kind of hypocritical - isn't it?:o
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    Are they part of a plot to overthrown the West - in the minds of a few deluded fanantics - quite possibly.

    Are the followers of Islam as whole looking to overthrow the West? I think not. :rolleyes:

    Of course not - the Nazis were viewed in exactly the same light.;)
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    Dont you think its incumbent on posters like you and metrovelvet to actually use the relative freedom of our media to educate yourselves, rather than spouting some of the ignorant bigoted trash and generalisations you have come out with on this thread?

    You do realise dont you that your ignorance is of the same kind that causes the fanatics to burn churches and embassies?

    The only thing incumbent upon me and others is to utilise our God-given right of freedom to argue that very freedom at every opportunity. If that includes "offending" people with a leaning towards certain extremist fanatics hiding behind a peaceful religion then yes - I'm guilty.
    secret_squirrel wrote:
    You have far less excuse too. Presumably you have had the benefits of a superior education in a country where there are greater media and societal freedoms and you spout trash like this?

    You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    My dear squirrel. Do you realise how confused that sounds? Education allows me to look at the world and long that ALL of it, some day, will enjoy the freedoms which I do. Education also allows me to recognise the bigoted bullies hiding behind religion who are attemting to undermine my freedoms.

    There is a lot of trash being spouted indeed. Except that it comes from the ones who:

    1. Seek to placate and appease bullies.

    2. Are burning down Catholic Churches - imagine if a Mosque was torched?
    You'd never hear the end of it. But of course, we are not brainswashed
    and will not go down that road.

    3. Cry 'minority discrimination'. The problem nowadays is that the silent
    MAJORITY remain unheard. As has always been the case.

    The bottom line here my friend is that a crowd of thugs hiding behind religion have used cartoons as an excuse to go on a rampage. They will ultimately be sorted, just as the Hitlers, etc of the past. They are no different. One section of the population trying forcefully to impose their narrow minded views on the other 99%. For God's sake it could be the 1930s.:mad:


  • #383
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    pH wrote:
    Are you now saying that *all* the cartoons are offensive, and that any image of mohammed is indeed offensive and may not be printed?

    *yawn* if you haven't understood my feelings on it now, playing word games isn't going to change anything.

    threads over as far as I am concerned. Way off topic.


  • #384
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Hobbes wrote:
    *yawn* if you haven't understood my feelings on it now, playing word games isn't going to change anything.

    threads over as far as I am concerned. Way off topic.
    Hardly my fault you cannot express yourself clearly .. you bore me too.

    This thread is not about Islam it is about what the media should or should not publish and who has the right to decide. On topic I say.

    This is the 2nd time you've tried this 'I think this thread should be shut down' whine - don't like it - don't post would be my suggestion.


  • #385
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Hobbes wrote:
    Where did you pick that up from? If anything the sheer vast majority were not rioting, granted a lot were upset but that is understandable if you even bothered to read up the on the religon.

    The comment that was passed on the BBC and Sky News bulletins came from a protestor who said "you don't want to antagonise 1.2 billion people". He appears to forget that there are a further 4.8 billion who may not agree with him.


  • #386
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    pH wrote:
    Hardly my fault you cannot express yourself clearly .. you bore me too.

    This thread is not about Islam it is about what the media should or should not publish and who has the right to decide. On topic I say.

    This is the 2nd time you've tried this 'I think this thread should be shut down' whine - don't like it - don't post would be my suggestion.

    I have to agree with you. Regardless of which side of this argument you support (and I have been debating this subject on three or four different fora - ended up being banned from the Islamic one by a certain moderator) there seems to be an undercurrent - dare I say agenda - on certain people's behalf to stifle debate from one perspective.

    In my own case this only seems to cause a problem when I voice support for the USA - "you're off topic" is often the cry.....particularly if you appear to be gaining the upped hand in the debate. Sad, but a sign of the times.:(


  • #387
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    pH wrote:
    Hardly my fault you cannot express yourself clearly .. you bore me too.

    You have already asked a question I have already answered. Not my fault your not capable of keeping up with the thread/s.

    But seeing as you can't keep up. For muslims all the pictures were offensive, of those about half were overly offensive even by non-muslim standards. Numerous other groups have said the same including the Jewish Defamation League.

    Now before you start asking me a question on that, prehaps go and re-read what has been mentioned before as I am pretty sure its been said by now. Rather then have this thread go around in circles.
    freddie59 wrote:
    The comment that was passed on the BBC and Sky News bulletins came from a protestor who said "you don't want to antagonise 1.2 billion people". He appears to forget that there are a further 4.8 billion who may not agree with him.

    Again the media is very one sided in this. I am sure they asked someone at a non-peaceful protest?

    For example I see skynews go on about over and over the last few days about rioting in Pakistan yet a peaceful protest in England over the weekend got very little airtime. Or the protests in Iran by the Jewish community over the holocost pictures in the local media got little to no airtime too, but the suggestion that other religons are denied in all Middle Eastern countries is played up.


  • #388
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Hobbes wrote:
    Again the media is very one sided in this. I am sure they asked someone at a non-peaceful protest?

    This was at an organised Islamic protest in London - it was on the Sky News headlines for hours. Probably the one you're talking about below.
    Hobbes wrote:
    For example I see skynews go on about over and over the last few days about rioting in Pakistan yet a peaceful protest in England over the weekend got very little airtime.?


    Yes - because it was a "peaceful" one. Unfortunately, when people protest by invading embassies shouting "death to the west" and "kill the infidels", then dress up as suicide bombers (even though they're a convicted drug dealer) it tends to attract a little bit more attention due to the fact that the people "protesting" are using Western freedoms in order to undermine freedom of expression.
    Hobbes wrote:
    the suggestion that other religons are denied in all Middle Eastern countries is played up.

    Usually because it's true.


  • #389
    flogen
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭flogen


    I have decided that it is about time to lock this thread. I do so for the following reasons:

    This thread has been consistantly off topic; while I understand that it is extremely difficult to discuss the issue without moving into Religious and Political debate I feel that on too many occassions the topic moved onto something completely unrelated to the real relevant topic of this forum.

    The debate that was rightly on-going as part of this thread has, for the best part, died. The posters remaining in the discussion have their ideas of what is right and what is wrong and seem set on these. The issues of contention; free speech, respect and censorship are all matters of opinion at this point. We all have our opinions of how far free speech should extend; some believe that free speech gives us the freedom to say what we want, when we want and that there should be no comeback from that. Others believe that we have such a freedom but that in practicising it we are opening ourselves to attack, both verbally and legally. Another group believe that free speech is, by its very nature, limited. The debate goes on, and will go on long after this issue is resolved.

    As it stands we are walking in circles and there is to be nothing of advantage from the weak discussion which has occoured over the past few days.
    Frankly, this thread probably should have been locked some time back. I decided that a strict banning approach would be better, and the discussion did get back on track for some time. At this point I am not willing to continue to tell people to get on topic or to nit-pick through their posts to find off topic statements amongst the mildly on-topic comments; in my opinion this aspect of the discussion is over.
    With that in mind, the issue is still an important one. It has highlighted a great gulf of ignorance between cultures. The West doesn't understand the taboo's of the East, nor does it understand the complaints that follow. The East does not truely understand the concept of free speech and a media which is not media-controlled, nor does it understand the fact that the media and its government are independent entities. These statements are generalisations but they are facts of the debate too.
    For those of you interested on continuing the discussion you will find numerous discussion threads around boards.ie, Politics would probably be the best place to start.

    I would ask that this topic is not started again in another thread in News/Media. If anyone has issue with the closing of this thread feel free to take it up on Feedback.

    Thank you.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement