BF2S Forums Appeasement?

JahManRed wrote:

The biggest act of Appeasement in the past 60 years was to appease the Zionists. "We want our own country" Sure, carve off a piece of Germany............. "Na we want a piece over there, because a fictitious book says we own it".................emmmmm Ok then.

No one gives a shit about the polish lulz.

Cybargs wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

The biggest act of Appeasement in the past 60 years was to appease the Zionists. "We want our own country" Sure, carve off a piece of Germany............. "Na we want a piece over there, because a fictitious book says we own it".................emmmmm Ok then.

No one gives a shit about the polish lulz.

rofl

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Errr no...

...with all due respect I think you may have missed the whole point of this thread. Cam pointed out very early on that he didn't care about this act of appeasement involving Jewish leaving Cert pupils because it had little or no impact on the rest of society (the same opinion shared by most other "lefty, liberal Euros" on here). The raison d'etre of the thread was to highlight how mountains are made out of Islamic molehills while other religions pass freely under the radar. This story made virtually no impact on headlines over here, I wish the same could be said about equivalent stories involving Islam.

I didn't miss the point. Not at all.

What I found in the thread was a whole different view of this situation--whether it missed the headlines or not. In the Islam-related threads, some here would scream it was European appeasement of the Muslims while many/most of the Euros would scream it wasn't.

Yet when it's Jews that are involved--not protesting or threatening--it's appeasement.

It's been a day or so since I've re-read the article, but it appears it would have resulted in a legal challenge based on the Irish constitution. A far cry from protesting in the streets and demanding cartoonists be put to death (as one example). Yet the reaction of one government to the former is appeasement, but the reaction of other governments to the latter is not. At least in the eyes of many/most Euros on this forum.

That's the cognitive disconnect here.

The fact is though that the media nowadays will give more airtime to 10 Muslims protesting at a military homecoming than it will to thousands of people from all corners of the community marching for peace (as was seen in Northern Ireland after the Massereene barracks attack). You're correct that there were no public protests in relation to the issue mentioned in the OP but the fact is I've never seen a public protest in relation to any Islamic issues here either... even though the media perpetuates a sense that they are a daily occurrence in Europe.

Until a religious denomination starts challenging my constitution (be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity or whatever) I am not too fussed to be honest.

Meh. Go find a girlfriend.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I didn't miss the point. Not at all.

What I found in the thread was a whole different view of this situation--whether it missed the headlines or not. In the Islam-related threads, some here would scream it was European appeasement of the Muslims while many/most of the Euros would scream it wasn't.

Yet when it's Jews that are involved--not protesting or threatening--it's appeasement.

It's been a day or so since I've re-read the article, but it appears it would have resulted in a legal challenge based on the Irish constitution. A far cry from protesting in the streets and demanding cartoonists be put to death (as one example). Yet the reaction of one government to the former is appeasement, but the reaction of other governments to the latter is not. At least in the eyes of many/most Euros on this forum.

That's the cognitive disconnect here.

The fact is though that the media nowadays will give more airtime to 10 Muslims protesting at a military homecoming than it will to thousands of people from all corners of the community marching for peace (as was seen in Northern Ireland after the Massereene barracks attack). You're correct that there were no public protests in relation to the issue mentioned in the OP but the fact is I've never seen a public protest in relation to any Islamic issues here either... even though the media perpetuates a sense that they are a daily occurrence in Europe.

Until a religious denomination starts challenging my constitution (be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity or whatever) I am not too fussed to be honest.

Meh. Go find a girlfriend.

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/page … T6MlGFi6k4

Christian girls are dirty bitches! It takes a while to get them to open up but when you do... phew!

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Errr no...

...with all due respect I think you may have missed the whole point of this thread. Cam pointed out very early on that he didn't care about this act of appeasement involving Jewish leaving Cert pupils because it had little or no impact on the rest of society (the same opinion shared by most other "lefty, liberal Euros" on here). The raison d'etre of the thread was to highlight how mountains are made out of Islamic molehills while other religions pass freely under the radar. This story made virtually no impact on headlines over here, I wish the same could be said about equivalent stories involving Islam.

I didn't miss the point. Not at all.

What I found in the thread was a whole different view of this situation--whether it missed the headlines or not. In the Islam-related threads, some here would scream it was European appeasement of the Muslims while many/most of the Euros would scream it wasn't.

No they wouldn't. Show me an example of that happening.

No one ever CARES about appeasement, but no one denies it to be appeasement.

I did show an example. Go look in those other threads and tell me the euros aren't saying it's NOT appeasement in those cases.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No they wouldn't. Show me an example of that happening.

No one ever CARES about appeasement, but no one denies it to be appeasement.

I did show an example. Go look in those other threads and tell me the euros aren't saying it's NOT appeasement in those cases.

No you didn't.

There are no links to or quotes from other threads from this forum posted by you in this thread. You are the one saying this is the case, against what everyone else is saying - so back your point up with something.

Just saying it happens is not giving examples.

Seems to work just fine for others here...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p2315796
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p2132217
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1825645
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 2#p1656892

Is that enough, or should I post more examples?

Four separate examples of accommodating a certain group being deemed NOT appeasement by euros on this forum. That certain group, in nearly all cases, being muslims/muslim extremists. And those are just the examples where it is fairly explicit. There are plenty of others where the same tone and thought pattern is clearly reflected.

But accommodating Jews in the same manner (even less so, actually) IS appeasement?

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No you didn't.

There are no links to or quotes from other threads from this forum posted by you in this thread. You are the one saying this is the case, against what everyone else is saying - so back your point up with something.

Just saying it happens is not giving examples.

Seems to work just fine for others here...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p2315796
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p2132217
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1825645
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 2#p1656892

Is that enough, or should I post more examples?

Four separate examples of accommodating a certain group being deemed NOT appeasement by euros on this forum. That certain group, in nearly all cases, being muslims/muslim extremists. And those are just the examples where it is fairly explicit. There are plenty of others where the same tone and thought pattern is clearly reflected.

But accommodating Jews in the same manner (even less so, actually) IS appeasement?

In most of the examples you posted, people have been saying it isn't appeasement, because it simply isn't.

So you haven't posted 4 examples of making accomodations for a certain group. Could you perhaps tell me what those accomodations are?

Example 1)

Is not an example of appeasement. The OP in that thread is about Muslims signing a petition. It's not appeasement because nothing happened. Reading a petition is not appeasement. Conceding to it's demands could well be, but since that didn't happen it's beside the point. No accomodation here.

Example 2)

Where are the examples of appeasement there for people to deny?

Example 3)

One off terminology used by a single person? Doesn't sound like appeasement to me. One person just decided to use a different phrase. The phrase "Islamic Terrorism" is still routinely used by the government. So it's not an example of appeasement, just a stupid article that picked up on different use of language by one (ex) minister in one incident. It's an example of one silly woman using silly language once. If it were government policy to change the use of language in this way, then it would be a case of appeasement, as it is, it isn't.

Example 4)

And the specific example of accomodations being made there is....     what exactly?


Yes I'd like some more examples. Ones that actually show instances of accomodations being made with nothing being given in return, and people denying THAT is appeasement. Giving examples of people denying something is appeasement is not enough - there has to be some appeasement going on in the first place.

Oh Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ.

One simply can't debate the point with you because you are just as bad about propagating the double-standard here as anyone else. Hence, since you don't believe there is a double-standard, no amount of proof of the opposite will convince you.

In each of those examples, there was clearly a similar situation involving another group...with euros arguing vehemently (whether it dealt with the OP or a tangent--as most of those examples did) that the situation was not appeasement (again, most were tangential to the OP...but that would require some intellectual honesty on your part when assessing them, wouldn't it?). Similar situations, but a different group (ie, not Jews)...but definitely not appeasement. Despite the similarities in situation (one group's sensitivities offended in some way and the government accommodating them accordingly--via actions or words), the one involving the Jews is appeasement, but the one involving another group (primarily Muslims) is not.

If one situation is not appeasement, neither is the other.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-06-12 06:29:49)

Bertster7 wrote:

Bullshit.

None of those examples had a specific instance of an accomodation being made to Muslims. If you think I've missed an accomodation being made, perhaps you could point it out.

I've read the examples, and none of them has such an instance.

You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Fine. Let's do, shall we?

Example 1

The bid from the supermarket giant has upset Muslims living in the area, some of whom say they find the idea of alcohol being sold offensive.

Next Tuesday councillors will make a decision on the application, which, if successful, would see the store permitted to sell alcohol from 6am until 11pm every day.

Councilors are debating on something after Muslims say they find the idea offensive. Government accommodation by consideration, but apparently not appeasement.
Test center shifts test date for Jewish students after concerns raised about test-taking on the Sabbath. Government accommodation, but apparently appeasement.

Example 2

Blatant denial of any appeasement by the British government whatsoever regarding a non-Jewish group, even though the British government has repeatedly accommodated Muslim requests/demands...for example:

The rulings of a network of five Sharia courts are enforceable with the full authority of the judicial system as they are now classed as tribunal hearings under British law.

That's a change to British law to accommodate a non-Jewish group...a far more significant accommodation than that provided by the Irish government to the Jewish students. But according to our resident Irishman, it wasn't accommodation, as "zero instance of appeasement, as evidenced by the fact that not a single solitary British law has changed as a consequence". There's a change to British law. But not appeasement?

Example 3

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

A change in governmental terminology to avoid risking "alienating mainstream Muslim opinion".

Repeated statements from euros that it is not appeasement. But according to your definition, it is. Accommodation. But not appeasement.

Unless you're a Jew, of course. Then it's appeasement.

Example 4

mikkel wrote:

For the eight time, we don't appease extremists....We enter into dialogue with sensible people from all groups and religion, including muslims.

That would describe what happened in the Irish Jewish student case pretty well. They entered into dialogue and adjusted according to the Irish Constitution's tenets. But apparently, that's appeasement. Even though a euro here said it wasn't.

Unless you're a Jew, of course.

Do I need to do more of your analysis for you, or is that sufficient?

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bullshit.

None of those examples had a specific instance of an accomodation being made to Muslims. If you think I've missed an accomodation being made, perhaps you could point it out.

I've read the examples, and none of them has such an instance.

You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Fine. Let's do, shall we?

Example 1

The bid from the supermarket giant has upset Muslims living in the area, some of whom say they find the idea of alcohol being sold offensive.

Next Tuesday councillors will make a decision on the application, which, if successful, would see the store permitted to sell alcohol from 6am until 11pm every day.

Councilors are debating on something after Muslims say they find the idea offensive. Government accommodation by consideration, but apparently not appeasement.
Test center shifts test date for Jewish students after concerns raised about test-taking on the Sabbath. Government accommodation, but apparently appeasement.

As I said, would've been appeasement if they'd done it. They didn't, it isn't.

The fact that it entered into their deliberations makes it appeasement...at least by the standard you've set in this thread.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 2

Blatant denial of any appeasement by the British government whatsoever regarding a non-Jewish group, even though the British government has repeatedly accommodated Muslim requests/demands...for example:

The rulings of a network of five Sharia courts are enforceable with the full authority of the judicial system as they are now classed as tribunal hearings under British law.

That's a change to British law to accommodate a non-Jewish group...a far more significant accommodation than that provided by the Irish government to the Jewish students. But according to our resident Irishman, it wasn't accommodation, as "zero instance of appeasement, as evidenced by the fact that not a single solitary British law has changed as a consequence". There's a change to British law. But not appeasement?

Didn't change. There has always been legal provision within British law for these disputes to be resolved by a third party. Sharia courts fit within that provision.

Not according to the British press. There was a change to British law. Sharia courts had been illegal. Now they aren't.

Accommodation. Appeasement.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 3

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

A change in governmental terminology to avoid risking "alienating mainstream Muslim opinion".

Repeated statements from euros that it is not appeasement. But according to your definition, it is. Accommodation. But not appeasement.

Unless you're a Jew, of course. Then it's appeasement.

Not state sanctioned, all completely subjective, simply the words one woman chose to use on one occasion.

Untrue. One woman who is a part of the government referring to a governmental policy change.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 4

mikkel wrote:

For the eight time, we don't appease extremists....We enter into dialogue with sensible people from all groups and religion, including muslims.

That would describe what happened in the Irish Jewish student case pretty well. They entered into dialogue and adjusted according to the Irish Constitution's tenets. But apparently, that's appeasement. Even though a euro here said it wasn't.

Would it? I think not.

How is entering into dialogue the same as making accomodations? The outcome of that could potentially be appeasement, but entering into dialogue in the first place is obviously not.

Of course you don't see that. Why would you. Then you'd have to admit your position is untenable. Lord knows we can't have that.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Unless you're a Jew, of course.

Do I need to do more of your analysis for you, or is that sufficient?

Yes you do. A lot more. Preferably from less shoddy examples.

Those were four quick examples, easily analyzed to show the disconnect between non-Jewish groups and this Jewish group and how the accommodation is treated differently--even though it is strikingly similar. For the Jewish group, it's appeasement, using the most lenient definition of the term. For the non-Jewish group, it's not even close to appeasement, because we have to use more strict terminology.

Double standard. I'm so not surprised.

Braddock wrote:

I've seen lots of example threads from FEOS but no actual quotations where people have tried to deny that something was actually an act of appeasement. As Bert said... "No one ever CARES about appeasement, but no one denies it to be appeasement".

Then perhaps you could 1) look at the threads provided or 2) look at the quotes I provided from those threads to make it easier for those who are too lazy to look at the threads provided.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bullshit.

None of those examples had a specific instance of an accomodation being made to Muslims. If you think I've missed an accomodation being made, perhaps you could point it out.

I've read the examples, and none of them has such an instance.

You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Fine. Let's do, shall we?

Example 1

The bid from the supermarket giant has upset Muslims living in the area, some of whom say they find the idea of alcohol being sold offensive.

Next Tuesday councillors will make a decision on the application, which, if successful, would see the store permitted to sell alcohol from 6am until 11pm every day.

Councilors are debating on something after Muslims say they find the idea offensive. Government accommodation by consideration, but apparently not appeasement.
Test center shifts test date for Jewish students after concerns raised about test-taking on the Sabbath. Government accommodation, but apparently appeasement.

As I said, would've been appeasement if they'd done it. They didn't, it isn't.

The fact that it entered into their deliberations makes it appeasement...at least by the standard you've set in this thread.

No, if they'd made the accomodations it would've been appeasement. They didn't, it isn't.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 2

Blatant denial of any appeasement by the British government whatsoever regarding a non-Jewish group, even though the British government has repeatedly accommodated Muslim requests/demands...for example:

The rulings of a network of five Sharia courts are enforceable with the full authority of the judicial system as they are now classed as tribunal hearings under British law.

That's a change to British law to accommodate a non-Jewish group...a far more significant accommodation than that provided by the Irish government to the Jewish students. But according to our resident Irishman, it wasn't accommodation, as "zero instance of appeasement, as evidenced by the fact that not a single solitary British law has changed as a consequence". There's a change to British law. But not appeasement?

Didn't change. There has always been legal provision within British law for these disputes to be resolved by a third party. Sharia courts fit within that provision.

Not according to the British press. There was a change to British law. Sharia courts had been illegal. Now they aren't.

Accommodation. Appeasement.

That's simply not true.

I wouldn't expect exactly that to have been printed, even in the Daily Mail, because it's nonsense with no basis in fact whatsoever.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 3

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

A change in governmental terminology to avoid risking "alienating mainstream Muslim opinion".

Repeated statements from euros that it is not appeasement. But according to your definition, it is. Accommodation. But not appeasement.

Unless you're a Jew, of course. Then it's appeasement.

Not state sanctioned, all completely subjective, simply the words one woman chose to use on one occasion.

Untrue. One woman who is a part of the government referring to a governmental policy change.

Except not.

Last night the Home Office stressed that no phrases have been "banned".

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 4


That would describe what happened in the Irish Jewish student case pretty well. They entered into dialogue and adjusted according to the Irish Constitution's tenets. But apparently, that's appeasement. Even though a euro here said it wasn't.

Would it? I think not.

How is entering into dialogue the same as making accomodations? The outcome of that could potentially be appeasement, but entering into dialogue in the first place is obviously not.

Of course you don't see that. Why would you. Then you'd have to admit your position is untenable. Lord knows we can't have that.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Unless you're a Jew, of course.

Do I need to do more of your analysis for you, or is that sufficient?

Yes you do. A lot more. Preferably from less shoddy examples.

Those were four quick examples, easily analyzed to show the disconnect between non-Jewish groups and this Jewish group and how the accommodation is treated differently--even though it is strikingly similar. For the Jewish group, it's appeasement, using the most lenient definition of the term. For the non-Jewish group, it's not even close to appeasement, because we have to use more strict terminology.

Double standard. I'm so not surprised.

No, you just haven't provided an example of appeasing Muslims yet, I'm sure there are some. You need to look harder.

lowing wrote:

So Islamic protests over free speech is not a challenge to your constitution?

No it's not. I don't know how things work in America but over here it takes a little bit more than an angry minority waving banners to change the constitution. Constitutional amendments are only possible in this country by way of national referendums.

EDIT: Now that I think of it I can't even think of a time when I saw an angry Muslim protesting against free speech here in Ireland, and I live near Portobellistan.!

lowing wrote:

Again, it is not the fact that it is Muslims protesting, the airtime is there because of what has happened in the past when Muslims are angered and mass for protests. and yes like it or not, it is news worthy.

So thousands of people marching for peace in Northern Ireland is not "newsworthy"? The media picks its fights lowing and angry Muslims generate better revenue it would seem.

Last edited by Braddock (2009-06-12 08:59:19)

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bullshit.

None of those examples had a specific instance of an accomodation being made to Muslims. If you think I've missed an accomodation being made, perhaps you could point it out.

I've read the examples, and none of them has such an instance.

You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Fine. Let's do, shall we?

Example 1

The bid from the supermarket giant has upset Muslims living in the area, some of whom say they find the idea of alcohol being sold offensive.

Next Tuesday councillors will make a decision on the application, which, if successful, would see the store permitted to sell alcohol from 6am until 11pm every day.

Councilors are debating on something after Muslims say they find the idea offensive. Government accommodation by consideration, but apparently not appeasement.
Test center shifts test date for Jewish students after concerns raised about test-taking on the Sabbath. Government accommodation, but apparently appeasement.

As I said, would've been appeasement if they'd done it. They didn't, it isn't.

The fact that it entered into their deliberations makes it appeasement...at least by the standard you've set in this thread.

No, if they'd made the accomodations it would've been appeasement. They didn't, it isn't.

Would they have even held the hearing if otherwise? If not, then it is appeasement...according to your usage...which is different than the usage has been in every other appeasement thread thus far.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 2

Blatant denial of any appeasement by the British government whatsoever regarding a non-Jewish group, even though the British government has repeatedly accommodated Muslim requests/demands...for example:

The rulings of a network of five Sharia courts are enforceable with the full authority of the judicial system as they are now classed as tribunal hearings under British law.

That's a change to British law to accommodate a non-Jewish group...a far more significant accommodation than that provided by the Irish government to the Jewish students. But according to our resident Irishman, it wasn't accommodation, as "zero instance of appeasement, as evidenced by the fact that not a single solitary British law has changed as a consequence". There's a change to British law. But not appeasement?

Didn't change. There has always been legal provision within British law for these disputes to be resolved by a third party. Sharia courts fit within that provision.

Not according to the British press. There was a change to British law. Sharia courts had been illegal. Now they aren't.

Accommodation. Appeasement.

That's simply not true.

I wouldn't expect exactly that to have been printed, even in the Daily Mail, because it's nonsense with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Then perhaps you can explain why it's being reported as such?

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 3

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

A change in governmental terminology to avoid risking "alienating mainstream Muslim opinion".

Repeated statements from euros that it is not appeasement. But according to your definition, it is. Accommodation. But not appeasement.

Unless you're a Jew, of course. Then it's appeasement.

Not state sanctioned, all completely subjective, simply the words one woman chose to use on one occasion.

Untrue. One woman who is a part of the government referring to a governmental policy change.

Except not.

I see. That didn't actually happen then. Someone must've planted those stories then.

The British Home Secretary didn't say that. The Home Secretary doesn't set domestic policy or anything. There weren't other officials quoted as making similar statements and similar terminology revisions.

Nope. Didn't happen.

Riiiggghhhttt.

Bertster7 wrote:

Last night the Home Office stressed that no phrases have been "banned".

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Example 4


That would describe what happened in the Irish Jewish student case pretty well. They entered into dialogue and adjusted according to the Irish Constitution's tenets. But apparently, that's appeasement. Even though a euro here said it wasn't.

Would it? I think not.

How is entering into dialogue the same as making accomodations? The outcome of that could potentially be appeasement, but entering into dialogue in the first place is obviously not.

Of course you don't see that. Why would you. Then you'd have to admit your position is untenable. Lord knows we can't have that.

Bertster7 wrote:

Yes you do. A lot more. Preferably from less shoddy examples.

Those were four quick examples, easily analyzed to show the disconnect between non-Jewish groups and this Jewish group and how the accommodation is treated differently--even though it is strikingly similar. For the Jewish group, it's appeasement, using the most lenient definition of the term. For the non-Jewish group, it's not even close to appeasement, because we have to use more strict terminology.

Double standard. I'm so not surprised.

No, you just haven't provided an example of appeasing Muslims yet, I'm sure there are some. You need to look harder.

And thus you've made my point...yet again.

According to you, none of those examples (or any others, for that matter) were appeasement. But somehow, NOT doing something that "could not be justified on Constitutional grounds" IS appeasement. The only difference between those examples and the Irish example are:

1. The Irish example was of the government NOT doing something that wouldn't have survived a Constitutional challenge
2. The group involved was Jewish

But it's appeasement! Appeasement, I tell you!