Muslims refuse to fight

14/01/2009

Several Muslim soldiers refused to fight in Afghanistan, citing their faith, according to the blog release "Secret Defense, confirmed by the Army.

These are young Muslims who did not want to fight other Muslims in Afghanistan, "wrote Liberation journalist Jean-Dominique Merchet on his blog.

"The refusal to go on a mission for reasons faith is a micro-phenomenon that involves less than five cases a year," said Colonel Benoit Royal, head of Information and Public Relations of the Army (SIRPA -Earth), questioned by AFP.

It reflects in his view, "beyond the reason given by the soldiers, an error of understanding of the meaning of their commitment to bear arms of France to defend its interests and values at all times and in all places" .

Also according to the Royal Colonel, "a disciplinary procedure is systematically engaged in case of refusal to go into operation, resulting in most cases to termination of contract".

Libération's blog states that a case was reported last October in the 1st Infantry Regiment Sarrebourg (Moselle). The soldier is, however, reversed his decision after having met a Muslim army chaplain.

Fell ill while he was to leave the stage of preparation, the soldier will only be sent by Afghanistan as planned next month, also confirmed by Colonel Royal.

The number of French soldiers of the Muslim faith is unknown, said "Secret Defense", the French law prohibiting recognition of religion.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/01/14/01011-20090114FILWWW00644-des-musulmans-refusent-de-combattre.php

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless it be by mistake" -- Qur'an 4:92.

If we went to war against Indonesia and/or Malaysia or any other Islamic country, expect many Muslims here to actively support the enemy or at least refuse to support us.

Why shouldn't they refuse to fight?  Put yourself in their situation.  

mantra wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 6:13pm:

Why shouldn't they refuse to fight?  Put yourself in their situation.

Because they swore an oath to fight for France and at their direction?  In the Army, you don't get to pick and choose where you go or what you do.

So this means its quite alright, if say, any muslims in our military can walk off the job if Indonesia decides to invade us?

It also presents the very real question - will muslims be loyal to other interests and make the national interest, second place to those interests. If so, why would we want them. Why hire an employee who might do what you tell them, depends how they feel and whether or not it might harm a competitor that they like better than you.

So sack them.

Well if they've sworn allegiance and are now refusing to fight - what does the army normally do with people who are disobedient?

Put them in gaol?

They used to shoot them in the first World War.  Fancy that - us Christian caucasians being so barbaric and killing our own kind and it wasn't that long ago.

Quote:

It also presents the very real question - will muslims be loyal to other interests and make the national interest, second place to those interests. If so, why would we want them. Why hire an employee who might do what you tell them, depends how they feel and whether or not it might harm a competitor that they like better than you. So sack them.

Why hire anyone then.  There are plenty of non-Muslims who hate their employers.

mantra wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 6:28pm:

Well if they've sworn allegiance and are now refusing to fight - what does the army normally do with people who are disobedient? Put them in gaol? They used to shoot them in the first World War.  Fancy that - us Christian caucasians being so barbaric and killing our own kind and it wasn't that long ago.

Seems like a reasonable penalty to me. After a fair trial, of course.

mantra wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 6:30pm:

Quote: It also presents the very real question - will muslims be loyal to other interests and make the national interest, second place to those interests. If so, why would we want them. Why hire an employee who might do what you tell them, depends how they feel and whether or not it might harm a competitor that they like better than you. So sack them. Why hire anyone then.  There are plenty of non-Muslims who hate their employers.

I think you failed to understand the metaphor.

Muslims have an inherent, expressed, and consistent conflict of interest with the national interest, in that they will prefer muslims over the interests of the state. You cannot have soldiers who decides not to fight certain enemies.

So get them to swear allegiance to follow us into battle no matter what, against even Muslims enemies. And if they wont swear it, kick em out.

This is of some particular importance in this part of the world, where our most dangerous neighbour is an Islamic state.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 6:34pm:

mantra wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 6:28pm: Well if they've sworn allegiance and are now refusing to fight - what does the army normally do with people who are disobedient? Put them in gaol? They used to shoot them in the first World War.  Fancy that - us Christian caucasians being so barbaric and killing our own kind and it wasn't that long ago. Seems like a reasonable penalty to me. After a fair trial, of course.

Well I don't support the death penalty, but if it does ever get imposed here, a fair trial is critical. Hundreds of soldiers were killed in WWI for cowardice when there were extenuating circumstances like PTSD which weren't recognised then.

Muslim soldiers who signed up for the army knew what they were getting into. If they don't want to fight, the contract must be terminated. If they become traitors, they get jailed. Goes for everyone.

Quote:

Well I don't support the death penalty, but if it does ever get imposed here, a fair trial is critical.

Interestingly was still on the books for treason up until 2002, but only by accident. When they cleaned up all the Federal Acts in the great terror review, they removed it. The Commonwealth has disavowed the death penalty for a very long time now, even if stale acts still provided for it.

Pity. I think that the people convicted of terror crimes in Australia should have been charged with treason and shot.

Quote:

I think that the people convicted of terror crimes in Australia should have been charged with treason and shot.

And yet you still believe you have the right to label others as barbaric, interesting.

I would have not expected any lawyer to still support the death penalty in any form.

Well this is just one of the points which we've been discussing, and it's merely one of the very valid reasons why Islam in Australia must be either banned or very heavily controlled.
They're not us, they're them.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 7:06pm:

Quote: I think that the people convicted of terror crimes in Australia should have been charged with treason and shot. And yet you still believe you have the right to label others as barbaric, interesting. I would have not expected any lawyer to still support the death penalty in any form.

Why not? It's the appropriate penalty for certain crimes. Humanely executed of course. Many lawyers in the US support the death penalty.

Certain crimes warrant the death penalty. Martin Bryant should have been executed. Killing 38 people and wounding a 100 or so, life in prison is not enough. He gets to lift weights, watch TV and do 'crafts' with counsellors, or a bit of study for the rest of his life while 38 other people are dead. How is that 'just?'

You think that people plotting to blow us up, civilians, in the name of Islam, shouldn't get the death penalty? Instead, we can let them stay in prison. Convert fellow prisoners. Lift some weights. Preach to the ummah. Run a drug empire outside of prison with a smuggled mobile phone. Far better than a death penalty right. And all with your taxdollars.

You kill one person, you may get life. You kill 1000. You get life, you detonate a nuke in Sydney, and kill a million or so you still only get life (although the Police would kill you when they got you, so, only in theory). How is that 'just'?

The just penalty for some crimes is death. But only, some crimes. These would be, in my view:

- treason
- rape of children
- mass murder;
- murder with heinous circumstances, for example, committing a murder in a gruesome manner, say, through causing long and painful suffering to the deceased.

Not for changing religions or happening to be an 'infidel.' That's where we differ on what I consider 'barbaric'.  

But the execution, after a fair trial, of people plotting to commit terrorist acts against Australians? I think that's just.

Calanen,


Quote:

If we went to war against Indonesia and/or Malaysia or any other Islamic country, expect many Muslims here to actively support the enemy or at least refuse to support us

Tell me honestly, if we went to war against Israel, do you think most Jews would support Australia or Israel? Just look at all the cases of Jews spying for Israel, lobbying for resolutions for Israel etc. in the US and I think you know the answer, if you don't already.

While we're at it, do you think Italians in Australia would fight in the army against Italy if we went to war against them? Or Greeks? Or Macedonians?

How about a little closer to home, Ireland? Do you think the Irish here would support going to war against the Irish republic?

All of these cases are just as valid as the one you raised against Muslims. So if we go by your standards, there won't be too many 'real' Aussies left at the end of the day.

Quote:

Tell me honestly, if we went to war against Israel, do you think most Jews would support Australia or Israel?

It depends how you define Jew. I think most would support Australia. But if you restrict your definition to conservative religious Jews, it might go the other way. With Islam, undermining your country in the name of religion is mainstream. With other religions it's the extreme. Also, Islam is the only religion that confuses state with religion. Muslims are the ones who see everything through Islam. Most Jews would not see a war with Israel as a religious one. I don't think Australia has ever been involved in a war which the majority would consider religious.


Quote:

While we're at it, do you think Italians in Australia would fight in the army against Italy if we went to war against them? Or Greeks? Or Macedonians?

Sure, depending on how you define it of course. Plenty of Australians of Italian and German descent fought for Australia in WWII. Only Muslims see everything and judge every situation by what religion people have, and choose the side of Muslims by default, regardless of right and wrong.

that's why all your examples other than ISrael are based on Nationality, not religion.

Quote:

Tell me honestly, if we went to war against Israel, do you think most Jews would support Australia or Israel?

I'd still expect any Jews in the army to do their job.


Quote:

Just look at all the cases of Jews spying for Israel, lobbying for resolutions for Israel etc. in the US and I think you know the answer, if you don't already.

Yes more Zionist conspiracy stories.


Quote:

While we're at it, do you think Italians in Australia would fight in the army against Italy if we went to war against them? Or Greeks? Or Macedonians?

They already have. WW2.


Quote:

How about a little closer to home, Ireland? Do you think the Irish here would support going to war against the Irish republic?

Again, already have. Heard of the Irish Guards? The Irish have served in the UK military for a very long period of time, despite other Irish being 'at war' (or believing they were) with the English.

All the people of Irish descent would do their jobs.


Quote:

All of these cases are just as valid as the one you raised against Muslims. So if we go by your standards, there won't be too many 'real' Aussies left at the end of the day.

No they are not. Because all of the examples you have given are not part of a state with no borders, which Islam is. The only group that continually says that they have no allegiance to the state that they live in but that is subservient to sharia and the ummah, is Islam. Nobody else does.  

There were no Irish here joining in the terror attacks of the IRA against the Queen. None.

And while I would like a united Ireland, resorting to terror, should never have occured. Anyone who did so, should have been executed. On both sides.

Quote:

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless it be by mistake" -- Qur'an 4:92.

That is very strange considering that more muslims kill muslims then anybody else.
Anyway, don't they ask people joining an army if there can be any religious, ideological, dietary, etc reason that would make fighting problematic for them?

freediver,


Quote:

It depends how you define Jew. I think most would support Australia.

Then I'd suggest you don't really know much about Jews in foreign countries. They are much harder workers in support of Israel than Muslims are in support of any foreign entity. Look at movements like AIPAC and AIJAC and the intense work they do in support of Israel. Also consider that Australia has had many Jews who've made Aliyah (Jewish nationalist/religious immigration), also consider  that Mark Regev, the Israeli propaganda minister, was actually born and raised here in Australia, and was educated in Melbourne University.

You're gullible fd, that's about all I can say. Or you're deliberately denying it, just to get your argument through.


Quote:

But if you restrict your definition to conservative religious Jews, it might go the other way

Actually Zionism is usually stronger amongst non-religious Jews. In fact there's some orthodox groups who even oppose the existence of Israel. I guarantee you if you ask most Jews if they are Zionists, in Australia, the bulk would say yes. Zionism is "Israeli Nationalism".

[quote]Also, Islam is the only religion that confuses state with religion[/quote]

Actually all religions were like this prior to the renaissance, including Christianity. Judaism is one of the most state based religions. No doubt you'll keeep denying it to keep your argument alive. Read the Bible, read the Talmud. Both detail quite clearly a state. Also Israel is a state based on a religious  group. So your argument is shot right there.


Quote:

Sure, depending on how you define it of course. Plenty of Australians of Italian and German descent fought for Australia in WWII.

Did they? How many exactly? I can tell you this much, 4721 of them got herded into internment camps, as they were considered a security threat to the country....

Also the Anglo's had race riots regarding them (so Cronulla wasn't the first? Aussies have a history of this kind of vile behaviour)


Quote:

In Australia, anti-Italian riots occurred on numerous occasions since Italian immigrants, or "wogs" (an Australian English slang for Southern Europeans/Eastern Europens), first began arriving to the country in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Many Australians viewed the Italian immigrants as "immoral", "low", and "dirty".

Wikipedia

Abu, why would Australia go in war against Israel? We are not taken over by your lot yet and hopefully never will be.

Quote:

That is very strange considering that more muslims kill muslims then anybody else.

Ah yes. But those who support the puppet governments are not true believers, so it is ok to kill them.

Also, any innocent people who get killed (and I mean real innocents in Islamic terms, other muslims) are called 'involuntary martyrs' by the terrorists.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:02pm:

... Then I'd suggest you don't really know much about Jews in foreign countries. They are much harder workers in support of Israel than Muslims are in support of any foreign entity. ...

That is sounds misleading after all your talk about how all muslims are brothers. You would never condemn any muslim terrorists so it is reasonable to assume that you don't think about them as foreign entities.

tallowood wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:07pm:

Abu, why would Australia go in war against Israel? We are not taken over by your lot yet and hopefully never will be.

We'd lose too, just quietly.

Quote:

Then I'd suggest you don't really know much about Jews in foreign countries.

I'd suggest you are hopelessly biased. The protocols were a fake, remember?

Quote:

Look at movements like AIPAC and AIJAC and the intense work they do in support of Israel.

Are they a majority, or a minority? Would they still be a member if Israel attacked Australa?


Quote:

Actually Zionism is usually stronger amongst non-religious Jews.

So many religious Jews are not Zionist? What percentage would you class as Zionist? You seem to be characterising Jews by a tiny minority.


Quote:

I guarantee you if you ask most Jews if they are Zionists, in Australia, the bulk would say yes. Zionism is "Israeli Nationalism".

This is about whether they would fight against Australia, not whether they support the right of Israel to exist. Even I support the right of Israel to exist.


Quote:

Judaism is one of the most state based religions.

It's got nothing on Islam.


Quote:

Read the Bible, read the Talmud. Both detail quite clearly a state.

Crap. Like I said, if I want to find out about Judaism or Christianity, an extremist Muslim would be the last person I ask.


Quote:

Also Israel is a state based on a religious  group. So your argument is shot right there.

That has nothing to do with my argument.


Quote:

Also the Anglo's had race riots regarding them (so Cronulla wasn't the first? Aussies have a history of this kind of vile behaviour)

Good piont. Perhaps now you can understand our views on Islam.

Calanen,


Quote:

I'd still expect any Jews in the army to do their job.

The fact that you avoided whether you thought they would or wouldn't is noted.  :)

Nice double speak there, seriously you should try to get a job with Regev.


Quote:

Yes more Zionist conspiracy stories.

That's right, Jonathan Pollard isn't really sitting in a US prison for stealing military secrets for Israel, it's all just a conspiracy isn't it. And Israel never got military secrets from France via Jews who were French citizens. And Egyptian Jews never blew up British/American interests in Egypt to try and sour relations between Egypt and the West did they... all just Zionist conspiracy stories... Someone's being deluded by stories here, and it ain't me.


Quote:

They already have. WW2.

As pointed out above, 4721 of them were considered to possibly have split loyalties and were interned.


Quote:

The Irish have served in the UK military for a very long period of time, despite other Irish being 'at war' (or believing they were) with the English.

Served in Ireland, fighting against their fellow Irish? I think not.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:11pm:

Quote: That is very strange considering that more muslims kill muslims then anybody else. Ah yes. But those who support the puppet governments are not true believers, so it is ok to kill them. Also, any innocent people who get killed (and I mean real innocents in Islamic terms, other muslims) are called 'involuntary martyrs' by the terrorists.

I see, they had covered all aspects. That muslim chaplain who talked the soldier to change his mind must've knew it all and probably some more.

Quote:

Served in Ireland, fighting against their fellow Irish? I think not.

Yes, they did. A lot.

Look up the Easter Rebellion for a more recent example. Even the local Irish police fought with the UK on that one. The Royal Irish Regiment, raised and commanded and quartered in Ireland, fought the rebels in Dublin.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 7:17pm:

Certain crimes warrant the death penalty. Martin Bryant should have been executed. Killing 38 people and wounding a 100 or so,

No way he did it. IQ less than 80, firing from the right hip when left handed, shooting out engine blocks, locals saying it wasn't him, judge refused it to go to trial, wasn't allowed to plead innocent, evidence destroyed, witnesses not allowed to testify.


Quote:

The just penalty for some crimes is death. But only, some crimes. These would be, in my view: - treason - rape of children - mass murder; - murder with heinous circumstances, for example, committing a murder in a gruesome manner, say, through causing long and painful suffering to the deceased.

I disagree for treason, also sedition. It would be very handy to have execution available for those crimes in the event of a hostile government.

Rape of children, I propose castration, genital mutilation, forehead tattoo, removal of tongue, ear drums, eyes, sense of smell and limbs.

Mass murder, depends. If someone has killed 30 people, they would be a mass murderer/serial killer. But what about the circumstances? Say there was a gang war, fighting to survive, it's not the same as just killing people for fun.

I have no problem with torture. If someone raped and killed your sister, would you have an issue with torturing them till they died?


Quote:

Yes more Zionist conspiracy stories.

Dismissing factual evidence as a conspiracy theory doesn't help your cause. Denial and disinformation causes you to lose credibility.


Quote:

They already have. WW2.

I thought the influx of these immigrants was after ww2. Sure there were a couple, but how many is a couple.

I'd be very surprised if the majority of these multicultural society members would bear arms against the culture they live in in Australia. Forget the ones who integrate, it's the ones who live amongst themselves and speak their languages, and bring hatred to this country, they aren't bearing arms if required.


Quote:

There were no Irish here joining in the terror attacks of the IRA against the Queen. None.

So you are saying no Australian citizens or residents have ever left the country to fight against the British crown in Northern Ireland? None have ever lent monetary or material support to the cause? You are wrong.


Quote:

And while I would like a united Ireland, resorting to terror, should never have occured. Anyone who did so, should have been executed. On both sides.

Killing innocent women and children is wrong. Laying down and allowing the British to steal your land, treat you like dirt, kill, maim and rape, subjugate you and just generally bastardise you without fighting back is also wrong. If singing songs and distributing pamphlets doesn't work, break out the Semtex and rifles.

I'd like to see you not resort to guerrilla tactics if your enemy, Islam, decides to wage war in Australia, chaos takes over and there are gun battles and bombings in the street.

Then again, I'd be surprised if you did. Saying something is much easier than actually doing it.

abu said


Quote:

"Actually Zionism is usually stronger amongst non-religious Jews." "Judaism is one of the most state based religions. "

Sounds contradictory. So which one is it, or is it again a wrong translation from an arabic manual? :)

tallowood wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:19pm:

Calanen wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 9:11pm: Quote: That is very strange considering that more muslims kill muslims then anybody else. Ah yes. But those who support the puppet governments are not true believers, so it is ok to kill them. Also, any innocent people who get killed (and I mean real innocents in Islamic terms, other muslims) are called 'involuntary martyrs' by the terrorists. I see, they had covered all aspects. That muslim chaplain who talked the soldier to change his mind must've knew it all and probably some more.

The way you'd try to change his view is to convince the recruit that the government of Karzai was more properly Islamic than that of the Taliban, and so it was right to support it and put down the Taliban. Which on one level wouldnt be such a stretch, given the insanity that went on under the Taliban.

The problem would become however, if you were just say, fighting Indonesia, and not an insurgent force while assisting allied Islamic governments - that you'd have no room to move.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:25pm:

Quote: Served in Ireland, fighting against their fellow Irish? I think not. Yes, they did. A lot. Look up the Easter Rebellion for a more recent example. Even the local Irish police fought with the UK on that one. The Royal Irish Regiment, raised and commanded and quartered in Ireland, fought the rebels in Dublin.

Make the distinction now. A lot of Irish in years past who were C of E identified as British, and a lot of Irish who were Catholic identified as Irish. Not so strong these days, but that's how it was.

You will notice RUC was also helping UVF/UDA whatever with immunity and support.

Don't mislead the facts. We aren't in a courtroom here.

easel wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:26pm:

Calanen wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 7:17pm: Certain crimes warrant the death penalty. Martin Bryant should have been executed. Killing 38 people and wounding a 100 or so, Quote: No way he did it. IQ less than 80, firing from the right hip when left handed, shooting out engine blocks, locals saying it wasn't him, judge refused it to go to trial, wasn't allowed to plead innocent, evidence destroyed, witnesses not allowed to testify. He did it. I've read his police interview transcript. It's on the web somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up. I dont know about locals saying it wasnt him. But in every crime scene, all the locals will have a different view about what happened. The judge didn't prevent the matter from going to trial. He pleaded innocent, and then reversed his plea. I think because, his lawyer told him, that any mercy you might expect to have *may* be granted to you if you just pleaded guilty. [quote]The just penalty for some crimes is death. But only, some crimes. These would be, in my view: - treason - rape of children - mass murder; - murder with heinous circumstances, for example, committing a murder in a gruesome manner, say, through causing long and painful suffering to the deceased.

Quote:

I disagree for treason, also sedition. It would be very handy to have execution available for those crimes in the event of a hostile government.

Do you think if there was a hostile government, that it would care about what the law said for these things?


Quote:

Rape of children, I propose castration, genital mutilation, forehead tattoo, removal of tongue, ear drums, eyes, sense of smell and limbs.

May not go that far. I'd just put a bullet in their head and bury them in lime so they dissolve.


Quote:

Mass murder, depends. If someone has killed 30 people, they would be a mass murderer/serial killer. But what about the circumstances? Say there was a gang war, fighting to survive, it's not the same as just killing people for fun.

A bit unlikely, and in which case, it wouldnt be murder.


Quote:

I have no problem with torture. If someone raped and killed your sister, would you have an issue with torturing them till they died?

While it might seem like the good thing to do, it's kind of pointless. Execution, neat and simple, is the appropriate penalty. Firing squad is my preferred method.




Quote:

Yes more Zionist conspiracy stories.

Quote:

Dismissing factual evidence as a conspiracy theory doesn't help your cause. Denial and disinformation causes you to lose credibility.

He was going on with the same crap about how Jewish NGOs control the world. It's cliched, old, and with no basis in fact. I've looked at a hell of a lot of government documents, and I've never seen anything about scary Jewish organisations.

Seen a lot more about other scary organisations.


Quote:

They already have. WW2.

I thought the influx of these immigrants was after ww2. Sure there were a couple, but how many is a couple.

I'd be very surprised if the majority of these multicultural society members would bear arms against the culture they live in in Australia. Forget the ones who integrate, it's the ones who live amongst themselves and speak their languages, and bring hatred to this country, they aren't bearing arms if required.


Quote:

There were no Irish here joining in the terror attacks of the IRA against the Queen. None.

Quote:

So you are saying no Australian citizens or residents have ever left the country to fight against the British crown in Northern Ireland? None have ever lent monetary or material support to the cause? You are wrong.

I know that people have sent money.  But I dont know anyone who has left the Australian army, or refused to serve for this reason. I also havent seen or heard of any Irish attacking people *here*. That's a bit different from Islam, which seems to make local attacks on people.


Quote:

And while I would like a united Ireland, resorting to terror, should never have occured. Anyone who did so, should have been executed. On both sides.

Killing innocent women and children is wrong. Laying down and allowing the British to steal your land, treat you like dirt, kill, maim and rape, subjugate you and just generally bastardise you without fighting back is also wrong.


Quote:

If singing songs and distributing pamphlets doesn't work, break out the Semtex and rifles.

Fine - but they should never have deliberately targetted civilians, which they did. Shopping malls, high streets, bars. That was really messed up.


Quote:

I'd like to see you not resort to guerrilla tactics if your enemy, Islam, decides to wage war in Australia, chaos takes over and there are gun battles and bombings in the street.

It's not going to happen. But if it did, I wouldnt be blowing up shopping malls and cafes. I'd be blowing up the Hamas militia riding around. Or more probably, I'd just leave - that's a personal thing however.


Quote:

Then again, I'd be surprised if you did. Saying something is much easier than actually doing it.

Who can say. 200 years down the track, your scenario is far more conceivable.

easel wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:31pm:

Calanen wrote on Jan 15th, 2009 at 9:25pm: Quote: Served in Ireland, fighting against their fellow Irish? I think not. Yes, they did. A lot. Look up the Easter Rebellion for a more recent example. Even the local Irish police fought with the UK on that one. The Royal Irish Regiment, raised and commanded and quartered in Ireland, fought the rebels in Dublin. Make the distinction now. A lot of Irish in years past who were C of E identified as British, and a lot of Irish who were Catholic identified as Irish. Not so strong these days, but that's how it was. ....

Who were mislim Irish identified as?

Quote:

Make the distinction now. A lot of Irish in years past who were C of E identified as British, and a lot of Irish who were Catholic identified as Irish. Not so strong these days, but that's how it was.

But Catholic Irish still served in the UK military.

There wasnt any other military.

I know what you're getting at.

There is a lot of racism in the ROI, at least whispered amongst the locals. Joining the EU has left them open to the multiculti swamp of immigrants.

Extremist Irish have generally identified with the Palestinians against the Israelis because they see it as a freedom from the British thing more so than a religious thing.

Calanen wrote on Jan 15^th, 2009 at 9:43pm:

Quote: Make the distinction now. A lot of Irish in years past who were C of E identified as British, and a lot of Irish who were Catholic identified as Irish. Not so strong these days, but that's how it was. But Catholic Irish still served in the UK military. There wasnt any other military.

Back in the day, not many Irish from NI would have been joining the British military, perhaps some from the ROI, these days yes different, but these days they aren't really deploying on a war footing to Ireland either. It would be interesting to know how many Catholics would have deployed on Irish soil fighting against the various IRA factions. The irony was unionist factions were never targeted as hard as the republican factions, and the unionist factions used to get support from the British government.

They're nearly all criminals these days anyway. No soul left in much of it.

Quote:

Extremist Irish have generally identified with the Palestinians against the Israelis because they see it as a freedom from the British thing more so than a religious thing.

They have, and still do. But they wouldnt know a Koran or a Hadith if it mugged them in a dark alley.