Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

Catholick churches don't support terrorism, they don't have hate preachers, and they are not affiliated with dodgy regimes.- Figg

{{  'Like Hamas, the IRA not only routinely hid weapons and explosives in civilian properties but also launched attacks from civilian homes, schools, hospitals and even churches.' - The IrishPeaceProcess


Then there is St Matthews Catholic Church the locals knew was being used by the IRA that led to an outright battle-

'Violence erupted at St Matthew's Catholic church on the evening of 27 June.The battle began at about 10 pm and would continue for the next five hours.'- wiki

As to hate preachers- you do know Martin McGuinness, Sinn Féin and head of the IRA was a catholic preacher? And the Church, whilst not publicly supporting the IRA privately did in NI, 'the Catholic hierarchy steadfastly refused to excommunicate IRA members'- John Brewer (Anti-Catholicism in NI).

As to links to dodgy regimes-

'Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams’s trip to Cuba, scheduled for some time this month, has once more brought to the forefront the republican movement’s involvement in South America matters... the IRA has had a four-year connection to the Colombian group, during which time, sources say, some 30 high-ranking IRA members have visited Colombia. These have allegedly included members of the IRA’s General Headquarters staff, such as Brian Keenan and Padraig Wilson, and a high-ranking member who is a close relative of Adams...The republican links to Cuba have been in existence a long time. Over the years, the Castro regime has given haven to on-the-run IRA members. Among the most prominent is Evelyn Glenholmes, who arrived in Cuba in 1991, according to reliable sources...she was linked to an arms and explosives find in England.'- The Irish Echo

And then there is Russia, or the Soviet Union as it was then, our enemies at the time and with whom we were engaged in a Cold War-

'During the Irish revolutionary period (1912-1923) and later Soviet Comintern trained Marxist operatives including Betty Sinclair and other anti-western Marxists like Michael O'Riordan would play roles in the establishment of Fronts and provocative agitation activities which led to the ignition of The Troubles (late 1960s - 1998) in which there were varying degrees of collaboration and contacts between the Soviet Union and the Irish movement. '- wiki

So the Catholic Church did support terrorism in NI, just not officially. Weapons and such were stored in Catholic Churches and grounds. They did have hate preachers and indeed some were among the leading members of the IRA. And they had connections and funding from dodgy regimes like the Soviet Union and Columbia.

There are plenty of similarities to be drawn. }}

[Mrs Figg]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/dec/18/we-live-with-a-gun-to-our-heads-how-iran-is-targeting-protesters-in-britain

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Not sure of the point there Figg- all it tells us is totalitarian regime acts like tolalitarian regime. No one is arguing the Iranian government are nice or good. That's not the issue, the issue is what do you do about it? Choices are pretty simple you have yet another bloody war with them, you try to undermine them from within (this working really well right up till 9/11 and the Yanks becoming increasingly stupid, forcing Iran into an ever more hardline position) or you have to talk to them.
Iran as a government is one thing, Hamas is quite another, they are terrorists officially, but they are also the government of Gaza, they make sure the bins are collected far more often than they blow people up. And the ones who blow people up tend not to be the same ones who run the government, and if history has shown us anything it's that ignoring why terrorists are terrorists is a mistake, and not talking to them leads to nothing good. }}

[Mrs Figg]

The point is that the Revolutionary Guard are targeting British /Iranian citizens in the UK with capture and death. Are you telling me that mosques and religious centers are not in cahoots with the regime?

[halfwise]

Some of them are, some of them aren't. We're saying don't jump to conclusions. Maybe I'm naive, but I doubt a western government would give money to support a mosque-run program without doing a little checking first. This isn't saying nobody in the mosque isn't connected to the regime, but some mosque leadership will be more independent than others.

[Pettytyrant101]

the Revolutionary Guard are targeting British /Iranian citizens in the UK with capture and death.- Figg

{{ From those articles and some reading of my own, that's not what they are doing. As Iran kidnapping or murdering people on British soil is a diplomatic step too far. Tey are not crazy just bad. They are threatening the family members still in Iran of Iranians in the UK who are protesting against the Iranian government.
As a tactic, gaining leverage to 'persuade' someone to toe the line by threatening or even holding hostage a family member, it's a very old tactic. European nations did it as a matter of course for centuries. And I'd be very surprised if it's still not an ongoing tactic in espionage spheres, I'm quite sure our secret services and the CIA have both used threats of bad things happening to family members to get what they need. Don't assume we are above using these tried and trusted methods ourselves.

I'd also agree with Halfy that the relevant authorities would be well aware of activities in the UK's mosques, they have been watching them for decades now, and especially since 9/11. If any mosque in the UK is actually operating as an Iranian sleeper cell I suspect it's only still allowed to exist because our secret service has determined the information they are getting from it, outweighs the actual risk they pose.}}

[Mrs Figg]

wow, just been reading about the testimonies of the so-called 'progressive' presidents of the universities of Harvard, Penn State, MIT, etc.. And it was absofuckinglutely unbelievable. They just wouldn't condemn the genocide of Jews. These people should be sacked asap. That Claudine Gay woman in particular was repulsive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_1biqNhNNw

[halfwise]

They are walking more of a tightrope than you portray. They did condemn statements about genocide of Jews, but would not take action until action based on that speech occurred. This is to avoid the hideous chain reaction of wokeness that you often complain about, culminating in not being able to criticize Israel since that would be seen as "anti-semitic". But where they went wrong is ignoring the fact that such speech is itself harassment, and therefore "action".

But they still have a complication - what to do about protests that are chanting Jewish extermination? Do you call out riot police? Can police even be called out for words not actions? The right thing to do it pull in the organizers and tell them that they can't allow harassment to occur or face discipline. Then narrowly define harassment. Criticism of Israel's actions is not harassment. Is calling for an end to Israel harassment? Tricky boundary: Israel is not "the Jews", but it represents Judaism for many. There are grey areas.

They got caught in a tangled web, and clearly decided on a course that was not defensible. They should have come up with a plan of action that allowed the right amount of free speech with out allowing calls for genocide. They took the easy way out and should pay for it.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Yes it's very difficult, even in the UK where some speech is illegal-hate speech, speech that promotes acts of violence and such it's been hard to police.

Two big examples are 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' and 'jihad'.
With the former in its original context and meaning it's a clear call to eradicate Israel from the map, it's effectively a call to genocide, referring as it does to all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. However once it got taken up internationally the context also began to change, it began to become not a call for Israel's destruction, but for a free Palestinian State. Problem is, some people use it that way now, and others still use it in its old context. If you are the authorities, how do you know when a protest is chanting it which they mean?
Same with 'jihad', it's a very context-sensitive word, there are several types of jihad and only one of them refers to armed uprising. Now in the context of Palestine and Israel it probably is most commonly used in this context, but again not always. If all you have is a 'call to jihad' as your offence, without the context how do you know which sort of jihad is being called for?
And how do you enforce it as law?

And as Halfy says on top of this if you go the other way, any criticism of Israel, or it actions, is automatically taken as anti-Semitism then you shut down all speech highlighting the many crimes and atrocities Israel is currently committing. It's a very fine line to patrol speech with police, and I'd think even harder in the US where there is a constitutional right to free speech, even, I believe, when its context is clear and it's deliberately offensive. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Of course, there is a distinction between the state of Israel and Jewishness. Students should be allowed to criticize the actions of a country, obviously. But these kids called for intifada and used the 'from the river to the sea' phrase, which means genocide. Any student calling for these things should be expelled, no need for the police. Any organizer should also be held accountable. The moral cowardice of the presidents was quite astounding, and there is no excuse. It's nothing to do with being woke, using that word just muddies the waters, makes it sound like they are poor innocents tied by free speech laws. This is all about Jewish students not feeling safe on campus and that is terrible. No wonder Jewish donors are pulling billions in funding.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ As I said you have to account for context and that particular phrase now has more than one.
And one might ask exactly why Jewish groups put quite so much funding and money into important US institutions, media and Senators in the first place. And if that has had anything to do with US total support for Israel over the decades, its arms supplies, and its lack of ability to criticize Israel.
I for one am suspicious of any group that lobbies on such a scale and cost with claims of expecting nothing in return. No one does something for nothing, let alone nations. And I would not mourn the loss of Jewish, Muslim, or any other special interest group effectively bribing elected officials through campaign donors, sponsorship and donations. }}

[halfwise]

But these kids called for intifada and used the 'from the river to the sea' phrase, which means genocide. Any student calling for these things should be expelled, no need for the police.

No, you can't expel a student for saying Israel should be wiped from the map. Would you expel a student for saying that about the Gaza strip? Think about it.

[Mrs Figg]

There have to be moral boundaries. Anyone no matter who it is, who calls for the death of other people has NO place in university. Universities should not be used as hotbeds of extreme politics or violent activism. Universities are places where everyone should feel safe within the bounds of civilized debate. If I started calling for the genocide of brown people I would be immediately expelled and probably prosecuted by the police. Why the fucking hell do these people get a free pass? When I was a student in the 80s we did many marches against apartheid, it was part of being a radical student and I grew out of it, but not once did anyone resort to violent language. What is horrible is the call for intifada after what happened to those civilians.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ It's America though Figg, they have a legal right to free speech enshrined in their constitution, even offensive speech. It's not like here where just calling for, or publicly supporting genocide can get you arrested, that idea would horrify most Americans I suspect (I have mixed views on it myself). }}

[Mrs Figg]

I know, it's the first amendment, and people should be allowed to say offensive things, as that is part of being civilized and allowing opposing views. I get it. But there must be limits on mobs of students calling for intifada on a campus full of Jewish kids. Imagine how scared they must be. Considering what happened in the 1930s, its not a good look.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I suspect Figg most of them are in fact not calling for that, their use of the phrase of "From the River to the Sea" is used in ignorance of its original context as a call for genocide, and rather in its more recent usage as just a call for a Palestinian state.
What worries me most, is for uni students they really should have a better grasp of geography and know this! }}

[halfwise]

to all above.

It's not that Americans would be horrified by the thought of people being arrested for saying people should be killed (and in fact they CAN be arrested if it can be proved it's incitement to violence), it's just more cultural awareness of the slippery slope if governments can do so easily. "Deeply Concerned" would be a better phrase; enough that lawyers would see fit to jump in pro bono.

But that's why we invented Cancel Culture, to provide another avenue for punishment of people who say such things. And see, it's a slippery slope!

[halfwise]

And I should add that Universities have a SOLID basis to prevent harassment, and should have jumped in immediately to curb the calls for infitada and the like. The government isn't free to do this unless it's knowingly inciting violence, and can prohibit demonstrations on this basis; but the universities have less burden of proof and more responsibility for their students. They were too slow to define shades of grey and are now morally off the deep end.

[Mrs Figg]

I am pretty sure most of the kids just think they are being edgy and cool shouting for intifada and are just dunderheads who don't know its implications, but for fucks sake talk about torches and pitchforks. Those parents are paying good money for their kids to go to the ivy league, and what they don't want is this rubbish on campus.

[Mrs Figg]

this is hilarious and scary in equal measure.

[halfwise]

[Pettytyrant101]

{ Americas participation and funding and arming of Israel's genocidal war continues unabated, and it seems undebated too-

'Secretary of State Antony Blinken has approved the sale of 155mm artillery shells and other equipment to Israel without congressional review, the Pentagon said Friday. Blinken said the review was waived after he determined an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale of the weapons to Israel- Fox News

The world will not quickly forget Israelis atrocities and war crimes, nor will it forget who paid them to do it. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Well this is, as story...police in England are investigating a 'virtual rape'. I kid you not. A girl 16 is saying she, or more precisely her completely non-existent in reality VR avatar got gang raped.
Police say she 'suffered the same psychological and emotional trauma as someone who has been raped in the real world as the VR experience is designed to be completely immersive.'

I honestly don't know where to start with this - should it be that you don't have a VR body, it's just a headset with a couple of screens in front of your eyes and headphones. Or should I start by pointing out is not even close to completely immersive. I use VR every day, it's immersive compared to looking at a flat-screen, but it's still just screens you're looking at just the same.
Or maybe better to start pointing out you can't physically touch anyone, if the game allows for your fake avatar hands (where the most you can 'feel' is the same basic rumble a game controller gives off) to touch the avatar of another person, they don't feel it, they wouldn't even know unless they saw you do it. So you can't be physically touched, or penetrated and you can't feel anything physically. Its virtual, youre not there, youre just looking and hearing.

Next of note of course is you can take the headset off, you can quit the app at any second.
I find this so belittling to women who have actually gone through traumatic rape, do you think if they could just have shut their eyes and their attackers would simply have vanished forever they'd not have done so?

To give an idea of how mad this whole thing is, this would be like someone at a 3d film going up to the screen and inappropriately touching characters on screen- it's certain to get you thrown out the cinema but accused of rape? It's madness, they are on a screen, flat-screen, 2d, 3d, VR makes no difference, they are fundamentally the same, they are stuff you look at on screens. And you cannot be raped through a screen. }}

[halfwise]

If police are investigating whether or not the "rapists" had any way to identify her, then it's a worthy investigation. But if there is no possible connection then the police should gently send her to a psychologist and explain the difference between actual and reality.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ No, they are not investigating if they knew her in real life, it seems they didn't (and most likely she would have a username and of course her avatar which could look like literally anything, and these VR style forums are global, chances are they weren't even from the same country as her) most likely it was in an app like VRChat - basically a series of interactive 'zones' you make an avatar you go wander about and meet other people in their avatars and chat - like all internet open forums it will have its fair share of arseholes and dickheads. But you can't 'rape' anyone through it any more than you can on this forum - people can certainly be horrible, abusive and so on (and it should get them a ban from the app if they are- but that's down to how well it's moderated) but it's not in any way close or comparable to physical rape, which sadly is what the police seem to be trying to treat it as. }}