Register to Comment
Page 1 of 15 123 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 142
  1. #1
    Thewarrior007 Thewarrior007 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    586

    Alan Shatter on so called Irish Anti War Movement

    Fine Gael has demanded that a visa be refused to an employee of a Lebanese TV station to address an Irish Anti-War Movement conference, claiming the station is run by Hizbullah.

    Alan Shatter (FG, Dublin South) said the Al-Manar station "is basically a Hizbullah propaganda television station, spouting anti-American and anti-Semitic diatribes on a regular basis".

    He called for the Government to refuse to issue a visa to Ibrahim Mussawi, a Beirut-based employee of the station.

    Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan said the visa application was under consideration, no decision had been made, and he would not debate the merits or otherwise of individual applications in the Dáil.

    He had no desire to stifle public debate on the war in Iraq or on any other matter, but he must also "have due regard to the requirements of public order in its widest sense".

    He said he did not want to prejudge consideration of any application, but said "in circumstances where the State uses its discretion to allow an individual to enter the State, there should be no abuse of this privilege".

    Raising the issue on the adjournment of the Dáil, Mr Shatter said it was a "disgrace that some members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including a member of a party that is in government, will, according to the leaflet published by the Irish Anti-War Movement, share a platform with a member of Hizbullah" at the conference in Dublin on October 13th.

    He said it was "extraordinary that a member of a group such as Hizbullah should address a meeting designed to oppose occupations as the raison d'etre of that group is to support the Syrian occupation of Lebanon".

    He also hit out at the anti-war movement, claiming it was not a peace movement but a "strident anti-American one".

    "Rather than an organisation which wishes to see the peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world through discussion and compromise, it is a collection of misty-eyed old Soviet Union sympathisers who have now befriended Islamic fundamentalists."

    Mr Shatter said France had closed down the Al-Manar channel following a decision by the country's highest court.

    Mr Lenihan said he had an obligation to protect the citizens of the State, and he would "take into account various factors, such as concerns about national security or danger to individuals, before making a final decision
    http://www.irishantiwar.org/node/47

    WOW. AN IRISH POLITICIAN WITH COJONES

    Next Saturday sees a conference hosted by the Irish Anti War Movement -- which is really the Irish Anti-West And Everything American and Israeli Movement -- and they had hoped to bring over Hezbollah apparatchik Ibrahim Mussawi to talk, as well as a spokesman for a terrorist group operating in Baghdad. So credit to Alan Shatter for standing up in the Dail and pointing out that the IAWM is not: "An organisation which wishes to see the peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world through discussion and compromise. It is a collection of misty-eyed old Soviet Union sympathisers who have now befriended Islamic fundamentalists."


    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/colum ... 39009.html


    Well about time someone pointed out the The So called irish anti war movement are not anti war
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    stannis stannis is offline
    stannis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,135

    Fine Gael has demanded that a visa be refused to an employee of a Lebanese TV station to address an Irish Anti-War Movement conference, claiming the station is run by Hizbullah.
    This employee chap will only be preaching to the converted anyway so it hardly matters whether they address this conference or not does it?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    JCSkinner JCSkinner is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,502

    Shatter would do well to address issues of genuine concern to his constituents rather than keep banging out the same hoary old Pro-Israeli line on everything. After all, his failure to do so in the past kept him out of the Dail.
    His work on, inter alia, the rights of children is to be utterly commended. More of that in this term please, Alan, and less of the Mossad mouthwash.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    stannis stannis is offline
    stannis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,135

    Careful now JC, that could be construed as racism like any criticism of Israel...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    JCSkinner JCSkinner is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,502

    Well, five pages into a debate about the war on British Jews, we've still learnt nothing about what this war is or how it manifests. But we have learnt repeatedly from some wise posters that I am an anti-semite for referring to UK NSO statistics.
    My point on Shatter, that I'd prefer to see him address issues that he is a) talented at dealing with and b) of interest to the constituents who elect him, is no doubt also anti-semitic in the eyes of some people.
    But I'm learning in my old age to ignore the rantings of those who'd rather fling slurs than engage in debate.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    Arminius Arminius is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    299

    I heard Alan Shatter argue with that Boyd-Barrett bloke on the radio about whether or not a visa should be issued to Mussawi, claiming that free speech should not extend to such people.

    According to Mr. Shatter, Mussawi was guilty of peddling the myth that Jews were responsible for 'plotting' both World Wars and were the driving force behind Russian Bolshevism.

    Surely the Nazis used to say the same thing about 'Jewish' Bolshevism? So how could we in good conscience approve a visa for such a man?

    Apparently the Nazis weren't the first to believe that, however. Some people may have read the article written by none other than Winston Churchill in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, which is readily available online.

    Among other things, the future Hero remarks:

    "There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews....."

    "In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing....Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing...."

    "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing...."

    And so on. The gin-guzzler did however acknowledge the frightful anti-Semitism that had plagued Russian society for centuries. He goes on to discuss the possibility of a homeland for the Jews.

    Apparently Churchill's views were commonly held in the 1920s. Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh (Sr & Jr) and many more...and later on of course by Herr Hitler himself.

    Has Alan Shatter found new evidence to support his view that Churchill was talking complete boll***s?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    yanshuf yanshuf is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,538

    Do you have support for the claim that the world is not flat?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    paddyahern paddyahern is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    191

    Quote Originally Posted by Arminius

    Among other things, the future Hero remarks:

    "There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews....."

    "In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing....Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing...."

    "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing...."

    And so on. The gin-guzzler did however acknowledge the frightful anti-Semitism that had plagued Russian society for centuries. He goes on to discuss the possibility of a homeland for the Jews.
    Hitler's Mein Kampf


    To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word
    'Jew' first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not
    remember even having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime.
    If this name were mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old
    gentleman would just have considered those who used it in this way as
    being uneducated reactionaries.
    In the course of his career he had come
    to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with strong views on nationalism,
    which had its effect on me as well. In school, too, I found no reason to
    alter the picture of things I had formed at home.

    At the REALSCHULE I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our
    relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions
    of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself
    formed no particular opinions in regard to him.

    It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently
    ran up against the word 'Jew', partly in connection with political
    controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I
    could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when
    I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other
    feelings about the Jewish question.

    There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews
    who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were
    so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans.
    The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion
    was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing
    them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought
    that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to
    hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I
    did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a
    systematic anti-Semitism.
    Then I came to Vienna.
    I will not say that the manner in which I first became acquainted with
    it was particularly unpleasant for me. In the Jew I still saw only a man
    who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human
    tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he
    had a different faith.
    And so I considered that the tone adopted by the
    anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of
    a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the
    middle ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see
    them repeated.
    Generally speaking, these anti-Semitic newspapers did not
    belong to the first rank--but I did not then understand the reason of
    this--and so I regarded them more as the products of jealousy and envy
    rather than the expression of a sincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
    My ideas about anti-Semitism changed also in the course of time, but
    that was the change which I found most difficult. It cost me a greater
    internal conflict with myself, and it was only after a struggle between
    reason and sentiment
    that victory began to be decided in favour of the
    former. Two years later sentiment rallied to the side of reasons and
    became a faithful guardian and counsellor.
    I turned to books for help
    in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself
    some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all
    began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a
    certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even
    familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such
    that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly
    superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and
    indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject
    appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was
    afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and
    uncertain.
    But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was
    finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews
    themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim
    was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was
    strongly represented in Vienna.

    To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed
    this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even
    repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those
    outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances
    emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of
    expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of
    Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they
    were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly
    professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger
    for Jewry itself.

    Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

    This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon
    disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct
    contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which
    that race had always prided itself.
    Oddly enough, Jon Stewart, a man I greatly admire, has never once criticized Israel. Why the ************************ did I start reading Mein Kampf. It's poison.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    essexboy essexboy is offline
    essexboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,405

    "No free speech for traitors", "Boycott Bass".
    Oh, sorry, I thought we were back in the 1930s - and so do others apparently
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    Coles Coles is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,397

    Alan Shatter is some idiot. He says that the Irish Anti War Movement is not "an organisation which wishes to see the peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world through discussion and compromise", and yet he is the one who demands that such discussion should not take place? What a gob************************e.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 15 123 11 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment